Why The Sexual Revolution Must Be Destroyed: Debunking Liberal Myths About Sexuality

[Outcast9428]

I'm creating this thread because nearly everybody seems to be agreement that feminism is bad. Feminism has been bad for men individually, its been bad for families, and in a much subtler way, it has been bad for women as well. The extent to which people oppose feminism obviously varies a lot. But one thing I've noticed a lot amongst right-leaning men is that an unfortunately large number of right-leaning men today cannot detach themselves from liberalism primarily because the most powerful aspect of liberalism still holds sway over their minds... And that is sexual liberalism. A lot of right-leaning men, despite understanding that feminism is bad, for some reason cannot seem to detach themselves from the sexual revolution despite the fact that sexual liberalism and feminism go hand in hand.

Contrary to what feminists claim, patriarchy is not abusive to women. Patriarchy actually treats women better then feminism itself does. Patriarchy forces men to treat women well and harshly punishes any man who won't. Combining anti-feminism and sexual liberalism on the other hand, is actually authentically abusive to women. Before I get into the moral argument, however, I will make the case against sexual liberalism purely from the selfish perspective.

Myth #1: Sexual liberalism increases sexual satisfaction. People who oppose sexual liberalism are prudes who hate sex.

Completely false... Sexual liberalism actually destroys sexual satisfaction. Study after study shows that the people who have the most sex are devoutly religious, married long term, and have had the fewest number of sexual partners in their life. 25% of married men report having sex at least twice a week if not more compared to only 5% of men who remain single. In addition, while 61% of men who remain single report zero sex at all in the past year, only 15% of married men report the same. Long term relationships also have a strong effect on the quality of sex, not just the frequency of it. People who describe themselves as "very right-wing" report the most satisfying sex lives regardless of which country you conduct the survey in...



Most conservative women actually do reach orgasm, the same is not true of liberal women...

https://redstate.com/brandon_morse/2022 ... ts-n501484

A big part of that has to do with the fact that casual hookups are pretty much never satisfying for women...



I've heard some men here say "if casual sex was easy to get, then men wouldn't care about relationships and marriage." Yes, you would. Because its impossible for casual sex to ever be as convenient as monogamous sex is. In a monogamous relationship where you live with your wife, you share a bed together and sleep together. There's no way to make sex more convenient then living with your wife. Even in a world with no taboos on casual sex whatsoever, you'd still have to walk out of your house and find somebody ever time you want sex. Either that, or you'd have to call a girl who might be having sex with somebody else or engaging in some other activity. Having sex will never be as convenient, frequent, or satisfying for you as it will be once you are married and committed to one partner.

Myth #2: Promiscuity and sleeping around is manly and natural for men because they evolutionarily want to spread their seed.

No its not... Promiscuity is only desired by three types of men...

1. A genuinely virtuous man who simply doesn't realize how pointless it is to sleep around or how destructive promiscuity actually is.
2. Insecure men who are desperate for social validation from men and women.
3. Genuine sociopaths who want to avoid forming any connections or bonds with women.

#2 is backed up by the fact that as soon as men are no longer concerned about impressing everybody and simply live the way it is natural for them to live, they always end up wanting monogamy. In the West this takes the shape of former players saying that casual sex is in-fact an empty lifestyle devoid of any actual joy or meaning. Even men who get into polygamous marriages in the Middle East or Ancient past typically end up favoring one woman out of all the women in his harem and essentially being monogamous to her while largely ignoring the others. This is what has caused so much fighting within harems is between women who are desperately trying to become the husband's favorite woman. This has led to women in harems going so far as to murder the favored wife.

The last type of man, however, leads to my third point against the sexual revolution.

3. Promiscuity and casual sex is advantageous, genetically, to sociopathic and criminal men.

Because criminals and sociopaths are the only people who genuinely end up benefitting from sexual liberalism.

23 different studies were done to find the correlates of criminal behavior and out of those 23 studies, 22 of them linked a higher number of sexual partners to criminal behavior. The only study that did not simply didn't find a significant link.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120513221 ... es/ch8.pdf

In a statistical sample of men, Sara Jaffee found that although sociopaths were only 10% of the men she was studying, they had given birth to 27% of the children. This means that sexual liberalism is enabling sociopathic men to reproduce at a rate nearly 3x higher then normal men are. On the following link, scroll down to page 122 where you'll see this quote...

"despite the fact that fathers who engagein high levels of antisocial behavior make up a smallproportion of fathers overall, they are responsible fora disproportionate number of births. For example,Moffitt and colleagues (2002) found that althoughmen who engaged in high levels of antisocial behavior constituted only 10% of a birth cohort,they accounted for 27% of the babies fathered by thetime the men were age 26 years."

https://www.academia.edu/es/13986357/Li ... l_Behavior

If you wonder why people seem to be getting increasingly selfish, sick, twisted, and depraved... Now you have your answer. After-all, 24 different studies have confirmed that approximately 50% of criminal behavior is genetically inherited.

https://www.jax.org/news-and-insights/j ... t-behavior

Meanwhile, gang members have dramatically more sexual partners then normal men do. Many gang members had as many sexual partners in the past month as normal men had in the past year. In-fact, no man except for gang members they studied had slept with more then 5 female partners in the past 90 days. Two gang leaders on the other hand, had slept with 10 and 11 different women within the past 90 days. The following research study even claims that for a large number of young men, obtaining sexual access to females might be the primary motivation for joining gangs...

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... y_approach

This is ultimately why monogamy has to be enforced. Its not just a matter of making a better choice for yourself, its not a vague moral tenant either the way that something such as respecting your parents is a vague moral tenant... No, promiscuity has really serious social consequences and the biggest one is that it is extremely advantageous to the reproductive strategy of criminalistic, sociopathic, and all around violent men. Which leads me to my next point.

4. Myth: Patriarchy promotes rape culture.

Wrong again...

Nobody is more concerned with protecting women from rape then patriarchal men are. In a patriarchal society, rape is extremely difficult to successfully pull off as a result of women sticking close to their fathers until ready to join a husband in marriage. In a patriarchal society, fathers will screen every prospective husband to make sure he is a good man capable of taking care of his daughter. No father is going to be okay with his daughter dating a guy who's got a skull and bones tattoo on his neck. This kind of thing is only possible in a sexually liberal society where women have enough independence from their families to make mating choices which are harmful to their well being. The website "Faith and Heritage" talks about this more in-depth with the article below...

https://faithandheritage.com/2018/10/br ... y-on-rape/

Rape culture, in reality then, comes from liberalism, not patriarchy. Last but not least...

5. Why do I hate BDSM so much?

Some may wonder why I focus so much on this particular perversion as the source of a lot of evil in today's society. I am also extremely disappointed by the number of so called conservatives who refuse to condemn this perversion. The reason why it is evil is simple, when women are encouraged to debase themselves, good men will suffer, the bad guys will win, and civilization will fall apart.

You wonder why so many women are going for men who are criminals and sociopaths? It ultimately can be traced back to women's auto-destructive tendencies. Unfortunately, a lot of women seem to have masochistic tendencies in their DNA. This is an aspect of primal female nature that patriarchy has fought against for hundreds of years. All the strict rules women have been placed under, none of them would be necessary if it weren't for this aspect of their nature. Sexual liberation did not free women to pursue better lives with better men. It did the complete opposite. Sexual liberation was done with the subconscious intention of freeing women to pursue violent men as mating partners and indulge their auto-destructive nature.

A virtuous society will do everything it can to prevent this part of female nature from surfacing. A good father who raises his daughter right, and a good husband who treats his wife well, can prevent a woman from ever developing this perversion. The woman will become a mentally healthy woman capable of love, nurturing, and being the mother of your kids. A woman who is corrupted by sexual liberalism into turning into a masochist on the other hand will not be satisfied with a good husband, she will cheat on him, destroy her marriage, and destroy her family because her brain has become wired to seek out abuse. And there is nothing you can do about it because she doesn't even care how severe the consequences are for her. Her brain is literally dependent on abuse for sexual satisfaction because a previous, violent partner, wired her brain to be that way. A healthy woman enjoys sex because she feels loved during sex. But when women start enjoying casual sex, it is because their brain is no longer wired to find pleasure in love and affection. It has been wired to enjoy abuse.

Traditional patriarchy recognized that women's brains are essentially like children's. They are extremely suggestible and malleable compared to men's, and this makes them very easy to corrupt. Therefore, it was necessary to make sure women were always under the influence of a good man. Sexual liberalism, however, has blown open the door for the scummiest of men to corrupt women into embracing masochism and pursuing self-debasement, which will result in them being perpetually unhappy and never achieving a stable, long term relationship.

[shawnberwick]

Traditional patriarchy recognized that women's brains are essentially like children's. They are extremely suggestible and malleable compared to men's, and this makes them very easy to corrupt. Therefore, it was necessary to make sure women were always under the influence of a good man.

Just like parents who don't let their children make mistakes and develop reflection and self-criticism develop children who are naïve, mentally fragile, and impressionable, perhaps too millennia of patriarchy has produced women who don't know how to handle freedom in a way that is self-actualizing.

Women's liberation didn't really get going on a societal level until the early 20th century, and it was a slow incremental climb for the ability to participate in society. As a demographic perhaps they are discovering how to navigate freedom, in a way that brings happiness.

Regardless of which one of us has a more accurate perspective, the cat is out of the bag now. I believe would take Handmaid's tale style authoritarianism for a few generations to return feminist nations back to traditional conservativism, or wanting a parent-child relationship to men.

I think a better prescription is to in courage women towards therapy and philosophy.

[MrMan]

Those are some interesting points you made there. I agree with much of it.

I talked to a man who'd spent some time around gang members. He said women would follow them around, exchanging sex for drugs, until they started to look gross from the drug use and not taking care of themselves. Then there were gang members who would give them drugs to have sex with a dog. Pretty nasty stuff. I wonder if drugs gives gangsters access to more women. It could just be that being antisocial corresponds with not caring what people think, so they go around talking dirty to woman, offering sex, and get a lot of response from the sluttier ones.

Other than sociopaths, it does make sense that conservative, married men get more sex, too. Women who are traditional, conservative, and religious are likely to realize they have a responsibility to be good wives, including provide for their husband's needs. I think feminism stirs up unnatural feelings in women, putting this obligation on them to not be submissive to a man, which is unnatural and stressful. And the philosophy is against meeting a husband's sexual needs. Some feminists think it is rape if a woman doesn't want sex... at first... if she's coaxed into it a bit. It doesn't really fit real life. The idea that a wife has a duty and responsibility to satisfy her husband seems to be missing from feminism. It doesn't teach them to care about their husband's needs. It's all about what the woman wants and her rights. This kind of one-sided-ness is not good for marriage.

I've never picked up a woman at a bar and had sex. But I would imagine it would be hard to talk women into sex, and nearly impossible for men to get nightly sex or sex every few nights doing this. That might be easier with a girlfriend, but sex with a girlfriend isn't right either. If you are married when you are both young and fit, you both get to see each other like that. Still, a woman is likely to feel a bit shy about it. At this point in our relationship on our wedding night, I didn't feel shy about it. i was too excited about what I was looking at, and I was reasonably fit. But what about when you get a bit older, balder, wrinklier, maybe even fatter? If your married, you still have someone to have sex with. If you get fat and she's thin, what is the chance you could experience that single. If she gets too fat or old, you can turn the lights off or use candles or lingerie (view blockers) or something like that.

If a girlfriend gets pregnant, there is no moral commitment there to keep her from going off and raising your kid somewhere else, having the state hit you up to finance it through child support. It's also demonstrating you are willing to take the sex from her, but not willing to commit with her for life. I know when I was dating my wife, she felt like she meant a lot more to me than just a 'girlfriend.' I wanted to marry her so she would be my family, and I could say that she is my wife. That's one of many reasons. I also didn't want to fornicate, and I wanted to sleep with her, her to be the mother of my children, and to spend our lives together.

A really big factor that leads to rape is young foolish girls going out without a male who would actually protect them, then getting drunk. When they are drunk, they might be willing to have sex with a man they would not otherwise, then call it rape the next woman. They might easily get seduced. Or a horny man who gets his ethics from the sexual revolution or porn might rape them or have the kind of 'consensual sex' a drunk woman can consent to, or just rape some drunk girl behind a dumpster.

I was reading about the 1950's. Women who hung out in bars and wanted men to buy them drinks were called 'bar girls' and were considered to be women of low moral character. Now, the country is overwhelmed by the number of bar girls.

[WilliamSmith]

@Outcast9428

This is a great topic! I only skimmed it so far because of time issues, and will come back later in more detail, but want to cheer you guys on for one thing:
Both the traditionalists contributing so far have brought up the vital importance of making sure your women are satisfied sexually, and then some.
This is damned important, and in fact much moreso to traditionalists. (To a lot of PUAs who want to just go for quick lays and hookups and bag as many different chicks as possible, they might not even give a damn about it it all. Reminds me of that old Razor Ramon "no chica," clip, LOL.)

For what it's worth: Even though I personally want multiple girlfriends and think polygamy actually has interesting potential within the context of traditionalism (a discussion for another time), I support monogamists and traditional loving families 100%, as long as you guys can come up with a good way to make it work for yourselves.
Hopefully more guys will get on board with trying to see it as an inspiring challenge like you seem to be doing.

I get where a lot of the other MGTOW and repdill guys are coming from overall, but there's too many mean-spirited defeatist beta males bitching about how they want to be allowed to treat women like a piece of property so that they have an "outlet," which is counterproductive.

Women who want to support traditionalism too (of which there are many) are still going to want to get nailed on a regular basis by a quality strong and confident husband (and the more orgasmic you can make her, the better, for obvious reasons), not some whiny dumbasses treating them like a piece of property or being abusive.

Also, those alpha type traditionalist husbands (as well as types like myself who still support traditional families even if we do things a bit differently ourselves) also don't want the mean betas being allowed to treat women like livestock, so those types of angry misogynistic guys need to either invest some time to learn how to attract women and show them a good time in bed, or else stay away from women and go get access to the new female android companions that Japanese and other roboticists are creating right now. (I think a lot of the MGTOW red pill guys yelling about women have positive potential and are just frustrated, but can still change for the better, and going to a better country is probably great, as well as self-improvement with the woman skills. But for some of them, if they actually really do hate women as much as some of them claim, then they shouldn't even be trying to get a woman at all.)
I think the main problem a lot of them have is a lousy self-image, so they've mistakenly got it into their heads they wouldn't be attractive to women if they improved their skills (which they actually would be, and it's impressive what a range of men women are genuinely attracted to if the men know how to "push their buttons" and rub women the right way, so to speak).
Bitching and spewing hate at women isn't going to get them anywhere though.

[MrMan]

A big part of that has to do with the fact that casual hookups are pretty much never satisfying for women...

This might explain, from a hedonistic perspective, why male fornicators are happier to jump into the sack than female fornicators are. Physically, she isn't likely to get this kind of satisfaction at least until there is a bit of a relationship.

[Outcast9428]

@MrMan

I think its probably both. Gang members do not care if people perceive them as immoral, it may even be a badge of honor for them, so they go around sexually assaulting and harassing women until they find a woman who lets them have his way with her. In the communities in which they operate, gangs also unfortunately tend to have social status and a certain level of respect from the community. They also do things like you describe where they offer drugs for sex.

I think girls who are in love with a guy are naturally more inclined to want sex with him. I've talked to several girls before who said they don't have much interest in sex until they fall in love with a man and then suddenly, their sex drive goes up dramatically. I think men's sex drive is pretty much the same all the time regardless of whether they're in love or not whereas women's sex drive fluctuates a lot more with her hormones and emotions. I've heard a lot of people also talk about how, in a marriage its important to make the entire day with your wife essentially foreplay until you are ready to go to bed with her. That all the little things are important and a big mistake a lot of guys make is being completely cold one moment and then suddenly wanting sex, from the female perspective, out of the blue. For me, little acts of foreplay come naturally. I loved playing with my girlfriend's hair, telling her how cute she was, and giving her random hugs or kisses. My girlfriend told me I was easily the most romantic guy she'd ever met. I never had any issues with her not wanting sex. It just seemed to flow in and out of our days spent together. I know you're completely against all premarital sex. I can definitely understand the merits of that. I think a big reason why this breakup has been so emotionally difficult for me was because we had sex. But I can't honestly say that I regret it. I've never felt as happy in my life as I did during the days I spent with her. I really wish I could've married her but I guess that wasn't in God's plans. I only hope now that he shows mercy on her and leads her to a lighter path then the one she's currently going down because I do not see a bright future for her with the way things are going.

@WilliamSmith

I definitely think its critical for the girl to be sexually satisfied. I would say though that women should show a little patience with a guy at the beginning of their relationship. Kind of like how hookups don't tend to be satisfying for women, the first time having sex in a relationship can be similar where both partners are kind of awkward due to it being their first time naked in front of each other. It doesn't take long to get comfortable with one another though and after that the sex does get much better for both people.

I think some of the men you are describing might just be blowing off steam. Sexual frustration can make people a little irritable, moody, and loopy in the head. I think a lot of them are just frustrated over the current state of the world and would like to think they'd become caring husbands if given the chance. Its hard to understand for sure though without getting to know each of them individually. I think God has different ways of teaching people lessons they need to learn and involuntary celibacy can be one of his learning tools for building a better character in someone.

[publicduende]

I agree with @WilliamSmith, an interesting topic.

I am Italian and, like many teenagers of my generation, I dabbled in politics on my last 2 years of high school and first 2 years of college. I was a staunch leftist, starting from liberal/progressive ideas and then radicalising somewhat towards more Marxist positions. In the end, my political passion, and indeed any desire (or temptation) to correlate real-life events with ideological or political colours, evaporated away when I realised two simple things:

• most people are hypocritical: they may profess themselves liberal or conservative, they may turn up to church or belong to a Satanic cult, and then act in a way that betrays polar opposite ideas. Politics and ideology are sometimes, indeed often, "business suits" that people wear out of convenience, conformity and the benefits that this carries.
• many people know how to live parallel lives: even people who consciously subscribe to a set of idea(l)s and have strongly political views, may very well believe in those idea(l)s and views but know that, deep down, they have to act differently to get the kind of satisfaction they need, and they need to keep their private life hidden away from their public personas.

I think these two points apply very well to the sexual sphere, which is something intimate that touches more of the irrational parts of an individual, than the rational ones.

There are also a lot of stereotypes, mainly those tracing back to the sexual revolution of the 60s (70s in Europe) and the way many of these "pioneers" saw the destruction of the traditional social/sexual order of the married, hererosexual couple, as a form of liberation from the moral diktats of Catholic society and Big Government.

Even back in the 90s when I was a young man devastated by hormonal climate events, we lefties used to consider ourselves sexually more satisfied because we wanted to talk about sexuality, even in its more controversial aspects, more openly, often in the public arena via conferences and workshops. We basked in the conviction (illusion?) that our women were prettier, hornier and more adventurous in bed while, at the same time, being intelligent and liberated.

As OP says, we considered sexual satisfaction and feminism as two things that non only went hand in hand, but one could well be the consequence of the other.

Sometimes one or two of us would share a "particular" experience, of having sex with a particularly conservative church-going girl who wasn't so conservative after all. Those episodes were considered "freakish" and anecdotal and quickly brushed aside as exceptions, as they didn't go well with the going narrative.

Growing up and throwing some thought to it, I (and my leftie friends) started to realise that talking openly about sexuality didn't equate to having a better, or more satisfying sexual life. Vice-versa, those more conservative people who were reluctant to talk about their sex lives, were not necessarily having less of it, or worse. Their silence didn't necessarily mean they were bottling up a world of sexual frustration and misery.

Going back to the crux of the matter: it may well be true that conservative men and women, who tend to frame their sex life in the context of married life, have sex more often and more satisfactorily.

It's also true that swallowing the sexual liberation pill, something lefties do more often and more willingly, opens up an entire Pandora's box of unhinged fantasies, fetishes, paraphilias and distorted views of sex and human interactions, and even normalises them. Once the box is open and having a threesome with your girlfriend and her underage sister while the family dog is watching doesn't sound so taboo anymore, our expectations of what's possible, indeed what we are entitled to experience, rise higher, well beyond what is humanly reachable.

Conspiracy theory acolytes say the porn industry was a Jewish invention and it may well be true. If this historical elite wants nothing more than the disintegration of Christian Western society and all it stands for, then nothing better than showing flamboyant sexual performances, large groups of great-looking bodies, men with impossibly large genitalia, copious loud orgasms and "lucky" situations and set-ups. Once a man or a woman consumes enough of it, it won't take long before fantasies become desires, desires become expectations and expectations crash into reality and become frustrations.

It's a pillar of our materialistic/consumerist society, to have well-oiled machinery that generates desires that will never be met. Henry Ford famously made his life mission not to just create a great car, but to uplift his employee's lives to the point that they could be able to afford buying that great car. Our generation doesn't seem to care much about hyper-sexualising everything and the consequences that this has on our psyche. There's an entire industry that creates extreme porn, celebrates "content creation" (self-produced porn by pornstar-looking couples somewhere in Colombia or Russia) and raises the bar higher every day, knowing full well many of us will get addicted, frustrated and - out of that frustration - continue to consume.

Wanting to explain that diagram above, if we hold true that right-wing/conservative people are sexually more satisfied, I would naturally put it down to two components:

• as I said above, left-wingers and liberals are those who have typically taken more of the sexual liberation pill, they have been much more exposed to the extreme, the improbable, the paraphilic, they have higher expectations and get more frustrated as most of those expectations prove unreachable.
• the stereotype is still strong that right-wingers and conservatives get their satisfaction from a "compliant" sexual conduct: few partners when young and then sex with their wives and their wives alone. Reality is, people who espouse right-wing views on the surface may have much deeper, and complex sexual desires and sex lives than we are led to believe. It is a fact that conservatives all around the world tend to be those with the most authority, money (especially old money) and power. Power leads people to think they can control everything and everyone the way they want. Without the strongest type of moral discipline, it's easy to get convinced that there is, and should be, no limit to what fantasies they can turn into reality, no matter how extreme and even dangerous.

On the hypocrisy and sexual perversion of the right-wing/conservative elites, their "clean" ideologies and immaculate public facades, directors like Pasolini (Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom) and Kubrick (Eyes Wide Shut) tried to warn us with their art. Coincidentally, both died shortly after those movies got out.

So, my conclusion is that:

• left-wingers and liberals are sexually frustrated because they are over-fed with unlikely, distorted, paraphiliac sex that, when desired or expected, is doomed to be met with frustration
• right-wingers and conservarives may well be sexually happier because they tie their expectations of sexual happiness to a more standard social construct, their married partners, but they may also be happier because they often have the power (i.e. the financial means) to engage in that unlikely, distorted, paraphiliac sex most liberals can only fantasise about.

[Outcast9428]

I agree with @WilliamSmith, an interesting topic.

I am Italian and, like many teenagers of my generation, I dabbled in politics on my last 2 years of high school and first 2 years of college. I was a staunch leftist, starting from liberal/progressive ideas and then radicalising somewhat towards more Marxist positions. In the end, my political passion, and indeed any desire (or temptation) to correlate real-life events with ideological or political colours, evaporated away when I realised two simple things:

• most people are hypocritical: they may profess themselves liberal or conservative, they may turn up to church or belong to a Satanic cult, and then act in a way that betrays polar opposite ideas. Politics and ideology are sometimes, indeed often, "business suits" that people wear out of convenience, conformity and the benefits that this carries.
• many people know how to live parallel lives: even people who consciously subscribe to a set of idea(l)s and have strongly political views, may very well believe in those idea(l)s and views but know that, deep down, they have to act differently to get the kind of satisfaction they need, and they need to keep their private life hidden away from their public personas.

I think these two points apply very well to the sexual sphere, which is something intimate that touches more of the irrational parts of an individual, than the rational ones.

There are also a lot of stereotypes, mainly those tracing back to the sexual revolution of the 60s (70s in Europe) and the way many of these "pioneers" saw the destruction of the traditional social/sexual order of the married, hererosexual couple, as a form of liberation from the moral diktats of Catholic society and Big Government.

Even back in the 90s when I was a young man devastated by hormonal climate events, we lefties used to consider ourselves sexually more satisfied because we wanted to talk about sexuality, even in its more controversial aspects, more openly, often in the public arena via conferences and workshops. We basked in the conviction (illusion?) that our women were prettier, hornier and more adventurous in bed while, at the same time, being intelligent and liberated.

As OP says, we considered sexual satisfaction and feminism as two things that non only went hand in hand, but one could well be the consequence of the other.

Sometimes one or two of us would share a "particular" experience, of having sex with a particularly conservative church-going girl who wasn't so conservative after all. Those episodes were considered "freakish" and anecdotal and quickly brushed aside as exceptions, as they didn't go well with the going narrative.

Growing up and throwing some thought to it, I (and my leftie friends) started to realise that talking openly about sexuality didn't equate to having a better, or more satisfying sexual life. Vice-versa, those more conservative people who were reluctant to talk about their sex lives, were not necessarily having less of it, or worse. Their silence didn't necessarily mean they were bottling up a world of sexual frustration and misery.

Going back to the crux of the matter: it may well be true that conservative men and women, who tend to frame their sex life in the context of married life, have sex more often and more satisfactorily.

It's also true that swallowing the sexual liberation pill, something lefties do more often and more willingly, opens up an entire Pandora's box of unhinged fantasies, fetishes, paraphilias and distorted views of sex and human interactions, and even normalises them. Once the box is open and having a threesome with your girlfriend and her underage sister while the family dog is watching doesn't sound so taboo anymore, our expectations of what's possible, indeed what we are entitled to experience, rise higher, well beyond what is humanly reachable.

Conspiracy theory acolytes say the porn industry was a Jewish invention and it may well be true. If this historical elite wants nothing more than the disintegration of Christian Western society and all it stands for, then nothing better than showing flamboyant sexual performances, large groups of great-looking bodies, men with impossibly large genitalia, copious loud orgasms and "lucky" situations and set-ups. Once a man or a woman consumes enough of it, it won't take long before fantasies become desires, desires become expectations and expectations crash into reality and become frustrations.

It's a pillar of our materialistic/consumerist society, to have well-oiled machinery that generates desires that will never be met. Henry Ford famously made his life mission not to just create a great car, but to uplift his employee's lives to the point that they could be able to afford buying that great car. Our generation doesn't seem to care much about hyper-sexualising everything and the consequences that this has on our psyche. There's an entire industry that creates extreme porn, celebrates "content creation" (self-produced porn by pornstar-looking couples somewhere in Colombia or Russia) and raises the bar higher every day, knowing full well many of us will get addicted, frustrated and - out of that frustration - continue to consume.

Wanting to explain that diagram above, if we hold true that right-wing/conservative people are sexually more satisfied, I would naturally put it down to two components:

• as I said above, left-wingers and liberals are those who have typically taken more of the sexual liberation pill, they have been much more exposed to the extreme, the improbable, the paraphilic, they have higher expectations and get more frustrated as most of those expectations prove unreachable.
• the stereotype is still strong that right-wingers and conservatives get their satisfaction from a "compliant" sexual conduct: few partners when young and then sex with their wives and their wives alone. Reality is, people who espouse right-wing views on the surface may have much deeper, and complex sexual desires and sex lives than we are led to believe. It is a fact that conservatives all around the world tend to be those with the most authority, money (especially old money) and power. Power leads people to think they can control everything and everyone the way they want. Without the strongest type of moral discipline, it's easy to get convinced that there is, and should be, no limit to what fantasies they can turn into reality, no matter how extreme and even dangerous.

On the hypocrisy and sexual perversion of the right-wing/conservative elites, their "clean" ideologies and immaculate public facades, directors like Pasolini (Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom) and Kubrick (Eyes Wide Shut) tried to warn us with their art. Coincidentally, both died shortly after those movies got out.

So, my conclusion is that:

• left-wingers and liberals are sexually frustrated because they are over-fed with unlikely, distorted, paraphiliac sex that, when desired or expected, is doomed to be met with frustration
• right-wingers and conservarives may well be sexually happier because they tie their expectations of sexual happiness to a more standard social construct, their married partners, but they may also be happier because they often have the power (i.e. the financial means) to engage in that unlikely, distorted, paraphiliac sex most liberals can only fantasise about.

Some people are hypocrites but according to this study… There really does seem to be a decent bit of overlap between political views and sexual behavior…

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2016/1 ... vative-sex

I think it’s more likely that somebody in the 1950s would’ve had hypocritical views on sex but I kind of doubt it today as opposing hookup culture in a lot of areas nowadays is controversial. I doubt someone would want to rock the boat and risk being attacked for something they don’t even really believe in.

People who claim to have conservative views but are not social conservatives however might be different. However they also seem to be less sexually satisfied. People who are not religious, only identify as moderately conservative or right wing are more along the line of liberals when it comes to sexual satisfaction. The studies even find that a fewer number of sexual partners increases sexual satisfaction.

Basically the closer somebody is to actual conservatism the better their sex life will be.

[publicduende]

Some people are hypocrites but according to this study… There really does seem to be a decent bit of overlap between political views and sexual behavior…

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2016/1 ... vative-sex

I think it’s more likely that somebody in the 1950s would’ve had hypocritical views on sex but I kind of doubt it today as opposing hookup culture in a lot of areas nowadays is controversial. I doubt someone would want to rock the boat and risk being attacked for something they don’t even really believe in.

People who claim to have conservative views but are not social conservatives however might be different. However they also seem to be less sexually satisfied. People who are not religious, only identify as moderately conservative or right wing are more along the line of liberals when it comes to sexual satisfaction. The studies even find that a fewer number of sexual partners increases sexual satisfaction.

Basically the closer somebody is to actual conservatism the better their sex life will be.

The study you quoted agrees with my conclusions, however here I am disagreeing on the variables chosen to represent the discrepancy. More than political views, I think sexual satisfaction correlates with socio-economic status, which affects one's ability to fulfil their desires and expectations of a sex life. The mechanism underlying this sexual satisfaction is not so different from that of any other personal fulfilment. It's always the combination of:

• having a certain set of desires and expectations on what makes them sexually satisfied
• being able to fulfil those desires and expectations, therefore becoming sexually satisfied

Liberals who are more likely to have been exposed to the realm of "no limits" sexual behaviour tend to belong to those social categories which, by nature or nurture, fall short of their ability to fulfil their desires.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, those who have the power to make almost any sexual experience, no matter how extreme and even immoral or illegal, happen, may or may have traditional views on sexuality. If they're old-school and they do, good for them. If they love paraphilias and sexually deviant behaviours, they certainly have the means to engage in them. Whether their idea of a great sex life is monogamous sex with a single, great wife, or drilling holes into chained up underage girls in a dungeon in Slovakia, their chance of being sexually frustrated is a lot lower.

In other words, it's tough to be a leftie and dream of sexual adventures when you are not, or no longer, a young stud and you have the wallet size of a standard middle-class person.

[Outcast9428]

Some people are hypocrites but according to this study… There really does seem to be a decent bit of overlap between political views and sexual behavior…

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2016/1 ... vative-sex

I think it’s more likely that somebody in the 1950s would’ve had hypocritical views on sex but I kind of doubt it today as opposing hookup culture in a lot of areas nowadays is controversial. I doubt someone would want to rock the boat and risk being attacked for something they don’t even really believe in.

People who claim to have conservative views but are not social conservatives however might be different. However they also seem to be less sexually satisfied. People who are not religious, only identify as moderately conservative or right wing are more along the line of liberals when it comes to sexual satisfaction. The studies even find that a fewer number of sexual partners increases sexual satisfaction.

Basically the closer somebody is to actual conservatism the better their sex life will be.

The study you quoted agrees with my conclusions, however here I am disagreeing on the variables chosen to represent the discrepancy. More than political views, I think sexual satisfaction correlates with socio-economic status, which affects one's ability to fulfil their desires and expectations of a sex life. The mechanism underlying this sexual satisfaction is not so different from that of any other personal fulfilment. It's always the combination of:

• having a certain set of desires and expectations on what makes them sexually satisfied
• being able to fulfil those desires and expectations, therefore becoming sexually satisfied

Liberals who are more likely to have been exposed to the realm of "no limits" sexual behaviour tend to belong to those social categories which, by nature or nurture, fall short of their ability to fulfil their desires.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, those who have the power to make almost any sexual experience, no matter how extreme and even immoral or illegal, happen, may or may have traditional views on sexuality. If they're old-school and they do, good for them. If they love paraphilias and sexually deviant behaviours, they certainly have the means to engage in them. Whether their idea of a great sex life is monogamous sex with a single, great wife, or drilling holes into chained up underage girls in a dungeon in Slovakia, their chance of being sexually frustrated is a lot lower.

In other words, it's tough to be a leftie and dream of sexual adventures when you are not, or no longer, a young stud and you have the wallet size of a standard middle-class person.

The issue with that assumption is that it rests on the premise that wealthier voters are more conservative which may have been true in the past but is not true anymore…

https://www.google.com/amp/s/dailyyonde ... 020/12/09/

The Republican Party now is seen as the party of the working class. So the people who’d have more ability to indulge in dark perversions seem to be elitist democrats.

[Outcast9428]

Very much on topic but I just discovered that the Philippines and Thailand both not only criminalize perverse pornography containing violence, incest, or bestiality but in-fact the acts themselves are illegal there too and treated the same as physical assault. Meaning people can actually go to prison for it.

It makes sense that these behaviors would not be common there as everyone I’ve talked to reports that Thai and Filipino girls really are authentically traditional and act like real girls who want to be loved and cared for instead of looking for opportunities to engage in perversion.

[WilliamSmith]

Very much on topic but I just discovered that the Philippines and Thailand both not only criminalize perverse pornography containing violence, incest, or bestiality but in-fact the acts themselves are illegal there too and treated the same as physical assault. Meaning people can actually go to prison for it.

It makes sense that these behaviors would not be common there as everyone I’ve talked to reports that Thai and Filipino girls really are authentically traditional and act like real girls who want to be loved and cared for instead of looking for opportunities to engage in perversion.

Wow, that's awesome! I wouldn't have guessed that about either of those countries. I've done a ton of research like that lately and was going to post it later a thread I found on here called "Countries with Least Jewish Influence" or something like that (LOL), but what countries rightly ban degenerate extreme porno like you mentioned is a great factor to add.

I'll post all findings later on all the other countries, but wanted to jump in here about those two great countries:
I love both those countries and am 100% going to eventually travel to both of them someday. I could go on for hours about the positive sides of those awesome countries only, but want to mention a few caveats since they're on the subject and fits well enough with the subject of what sex related issues do or don't lead to degeneration in a healthy society:

Thailand (and to some degree most of SE Asia) unfortunately has a huge sex industry with too many young girls working in prostitution, and I understand why a lot of guys want to whitewash it when they're keen (or desperate) to get laid, but some of the sugar-coating of it misses the ugly dark side of the industry:
Besides having too many of these young girls pressured (to varying degrees) to enter that industry through lack of other options or just general "everybody's doing it" trends, I recall one story where a criminal Thai brothel madam was actually holding girls prisoner with some accomplices and actually tortured the girls in a demonic basement dungeon if they didn't bring back enough money on their own and give it to the operation. So they'd send the girls out to the bars to charm the johns (who had no idea what the girl's situation really was), and often get clientele from some Westerners who weren't big hits with the women elsewhere who thought it was a fantastic experience for them and believed the girls didn't mind at all (since they didn't know any better), not realizing the real living nightmare these girls were actually trapped in every day of their lives.
Thankfully some kind of a sting operation busted this operation and got the bad guys this time, and some women wrote a piece about the girls recovering from it, but here's the "red pill" information about how there is a huge sex industry and not something that can be whitewashed.

I know some guys here who are good guys still think paying for sex is OK under some circumstances, and I'm not being unreasonable and implying that every single girl who does a little "escorting" is in a situation remotely close to this bad, but it's something to be aware of.

I still love Thailand and it's an awesome country though. I believe that the sex industry is rather concentrated in certain cities (Bangkok being one of them), and much of the country is far more conservative.
The Philippines also sounds better and better to me the more I learn about it. I don't know what the situation is with their sex industry, but that's great to learn that they ban degenerate porno.

Oh, one other caveat, though, is that both Thailand and Philippines are abnormally full of faggots and trannies for some reason. I used to not mind them at all, but now we know all too well what's happened with the jew globohomo agenda pushing pedophilia legalization and gays/trans/etc pervs actually being allowed to adopt kids. (I just saw some thing where globohomo crusaders issued a child sex education flyer that was part of their program at some specific school or summer camp or something, and had a sub tagline "there's no such thing as other people's children" or something very close to that, showing just how much sick !@#$ some of us once wondered was just conspiracy theory is completely real as the agenda.)

Back to the basic problem of having too many gays in an area: That's not necessarily a problem for bachelors, because it means even more nice girls there are frustrated and wanting to get a man but have more trouble finding one when they're surrounded by a bunch of homos and ladyboys, but it's not ideal to have any gays around if you actually want to raise children in that country.
Besides the obvious problem of fags having a tendency to be pedos, having them in there trying to get near other peoples' kids whining about supposedly being... what is it they call it? They say "protected groups" for every sick pervert in existence now, but there's one other term that's slipping my mind they try to use to get special status and then try to outlaw people from "discrimination" to not let them invade every area of society and go after the children, even if no one's even being mean to them.
Oh well, that's my contribution for now.

Edit: Ah, I think the term I was thinking of was "marginalized groups," LOL. Bunch of pervert drama queens, feeling sorry for themselves because they're not allowed to molest other peoples' children.

[publicduende]

The issue with that assumption is that it rests on the premise that wealthier voters are more conservative which may have been true in the past but is not true anymore…

https://www.google.com/amp/s/dailyyonde ... 020/12/09/

The Republican Party now is seen as the party of the working class. So the people who’d have more ability to indulge in dark perversions seem to be elitist democrats.

Still, people who can afford to engage in a more exotic - and expensive - sexual conduct don't usually belong to the working class.

[publicduende]

Very much on topic but I just discovered that the Philippines and Thailand both not only criminalize perverse pornography containing violence, incest, or bestiality but in-fact the acts themselves are illegal there too and treated the same as physical assault. Meaning people can actually go to prison for it.

It makes sense that these behaviors would not be common there as everyone I’ve talked to reports that Thai and Filipino girls really are authentically traditional and act like real girls who want to be loved and cared for instead of looking for opportunities to engage in perversion.

I don't know the legal landscape in Thailand but, in the Philippines, there has been a real concern in the past few years about sexual exploitation of children. I heard from a lawyer friend in the UK about some of his clients being relatively wealthy people who hired Filipinas and Filipinos to perform perverse acts, like having sex with a dog or raping their younger sisters, on smartphone cams for their viewing pleasure, in exchage for money. Mainstream media would occasionally trumpet up these cases as an example of "foreign evil" preying on the country's poor and eliciting the righful outcry.

There is obviously a big measure of hypocrisy, since, as in my original thesis, the usual elite of rich and corrupted people can do whatever they want, sexually and not, with total impunity.

Some FIlipinas are traditional and have a moral backbone, a red line that cannot be crossed. However you would be surprised how many of them, especially the Millennials and Gen Z'ers, harbour fantasies that range from the kinky to the outright perverse and illegal. Consider how so many of these kids grow up with parents who work abroad and lack strong role models, even if they are financially doing OK.

Finally, there is this undercurrent of greed and a "get cash easy" mindset, especially in Filipino men. One of the first things I learned when I came here and started to live in Davao City, a city considerably poorer than Cebu and Manila, was that everything is possible, at a price. Very few girls would be reluctant to do anything sexual, short of dangerous or illegal, for the right amount of money. And if they are reluctant, sometimes it's their boyfriends or husbands or even family members convincing them to do it, for the cash. And sometimes it's not even that much cash.

I know one notable member of this forum, whose name I shall not make, had a young Filipino propose him to have sex with his "big boobed" girlfriend in exchange for a pair of second-hand headphones.

[Outcast9428]

I think what we're getting here is that yes, bad guys do exist in these countries. I am not expecting a country that has no bad guys in it. What I'm concerned about is a country who's culture and government is doing absolutely nothing about the bad guys in it. And I am concerned about a country where the majority of the population seems to want to cover for the bad guys rather then uncover their crimes and punish them for it. To me it seems Thailand and the Philippines are at least doing something substantive about the bad guys over there whereas our own country is not only not doing jack shit about it but in many cases seems to be encouraging it.

I think you are downplaying the prevalence of traditional values. My ex girlfriend was Filipino and said that Filipino communities really gossip and stigmatize degeneracy a lot. She actually said it was too much because "they'll gossip about everything. There's no tolerance for any kind of degeneracy whatsoever." I told her that sounded like heaven to me and it was exactly why I love Asia so much. Her parents were also extremely anti-degeneracy. Not only that but they seemed unusually innocent as well. My ex told me they didn't understand for example that casual sex happens at American universities. I mean my ex girlfriend was not 100% traditional but she was the most traditional girl I've ever met and that's despite growing up in America. I'm sure the girls who actually grew up in the Philippines are significantly more conservative.

I don't like this trend that I see everywhere on the internet of people trying to act like all places, countries, states, whatever are pretty much the same. And that there isn't really that much variation in beliefs or behavior. In my own experience, I can say with 100% confidence that some places are way way more degenerate then other places are. My college for example was unimaginably degenerate compared to my hometown. I literally didn't even realize people could be that degenerate. The same feeling occurred when I went to Florida. I could not believe how extreme the degeneracy down in Florida was. Both my college and Florida were degenerate beyond what my mind was capable of even imagining before I went there.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, in my hometown during high school, some people did occasionally have hookups. But I had never seen anybody literally pursue nothing but hookups. At my college, the hookup scene was so extreme that virtually nobody even had relationships. You never saw couples walking around on campus. Only one person I knew actually ended up in a relationship and that was only because he had previously known her from high school. I did not know a single person who met a girl at my college and had a relationship with her.

I also made friends with a lot of Arab foreign exchange students from countries like Qatar, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen back in college and they told me "nobody has hookups in our countries." They said it literally just doesn't happen. They said the most that ever happened was sometimes older high school students would date in secret and maybe do sexual things. But that nobody talked about it and there certainly was nothing resembling a hookup culture.