Why did the sexual revolution occur, who/what groups were responsible?

...

Any source on those crime statistics?

Why wait? Odds are this is just a poorly veiled "women are sluts" thread rather than a genuine interest in the social movements of the sexual revolution.

The problem of the liberals and libertarians is that they created the middle class in a society which is after positivism and structuralism and now they strive to save their humans rights in both the scientific and the humanity fields. They try to incorporate the religions into their dream of a secular society. The religious ares here to expose how good the liberals and libertarians are good at tolerating what they will always think as retards, but of course, those retards are not meant to take power. The the liberals and libertarians have taken power from the religious and will not give it back.
The middle class is here only to work in order to dwell better in leisure: to embrace the liberal mores, but still with the duty& need to work each day.

The problems of the liberals and libertarians and their mores is about the merit and explicit authority. they fail to expose what a merit is, beyond paying your taxes otherwise you go to prison (if you are poor), which inherently contradicts the goal of the Human rights: the goal is to make everybody impotent through their actions, so that people become active only through speech and cling to the fantasy of the free thinker.
The marxist society is not meant to exist, it is meant for people to fantasize about a society where everybody is potent in act, not in thought, whereas the safety remains assured. This is why women love this doctrine.
The marxist society is the dream where masters and slaves reunite, thanks to the master, and the slave forgives the master for being so authoritative and punitive, in the liberal society, where and when the master tries to elevate the slave.
The goal of the liberals and libertarians is to instal the dichotomy of liberal-libertarian as the only one possible, ejecting the extremes and thinking that the liberals and libertarians are indeed different: they are not; they use and fight for the exact same principles.

This graph is bad. Comparing these things this simple.

>In a surprising decision from Canada's Supreme Court, the country's top judges ruled that forcing a dog to perform oral sex is not, in fact, bestiality and therefore not necessarily illegal.

>The ruling essentially invites Parliament to get to work and fix that.

>The case before the court involves an unnamed man, accused of forcing the family dog to perform oral sex on his underage daughter. The man was convicted of a litany of sexual offences in relation to the abuse, and sentenced to 14 years in jail. On one charge of bestiality, however, he was acquitted on appeal.

>His case was surprisingly complex. His lawyers contended that Parliament had never intended to criminalize oral sex with animals. Instead, they argued before the court, the charge, which carries no formal definition in the Criminal Code, was linked to 'buggery' — a similar charge also criminalized homosexual acts — and therefore required penetration.

>The Government of Canada, as well as Animal Justice — an animal rights group — argued that the court ought to take a common sense approach to the law and naturally consider any sexual contact with animals as wrong, abusive, and illegal.

archive.is/Vi416

Poor and rich people get pussy alike. What's the virgin's excuse?

‘Storming Wikipedia’: Colleges offer credit to students who enter ‘feminist thinking’ into Wikipedia

wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=59682

The pill, and lsd. Youth movements are often shaped more by their drug of choice than any ideology, this is why the 80's had House music and the 90's had Rave culture.

>It already has undone itself a little. The idea of "free love" isn't really compatible with the West, we champion romantic love and, to many people, sex is a sacred thing that shouldn't be done with just anyone.

lel no

men accept more and more open marriage.

Good blanket statement, friend.

The crime ones are government data, although he exaggerated the curves a bit. The marriage one came directly from his ass, near as I can tell.

When did welfare for single mothers come in?

Yeah it did seem like a rather strange graph considering it had no actually measurements other than time

From this video series on the topic that I highly recommend, and which goes deep into the topic even with other interesting stats:

youtube.com/watch?v=J1imXIDBOdo

>make indexed graph
>set 100 at the point of interest "X"
>WELL FUCK Look what "X" did!!!

dont ever try to Veeky Forums again you dumb fucker

Nah. =>

Not him but the sexual revolution has been disasterous for the West. Collapsing marriage and birth rates mean every welfare state is forced into mass immigration or pensions can't be paid. While a certain level of immigration is natural and healthy for countries, the levels seen since the 60-70's are artifically high and tend to devalue lower-end jobs while keeping the housing market priced high.

Crime rates have gone up. Several studies have indictated that the number one predictor of future criminal activity is not race, intelligence or poverty, but the presence (or rather lack of presence) of a father in the household

Fertility rates were falling below replacement levels, or to very low levels, in the 1930s. Low fertility rates are not just a post-1970s phenomena.

Furthermore, if you read into the subject, then some of the countries that have become the most liberalized (France and Scandinavian countries are a good example) are actually the most fertile; conversely the most traditionalist countries of Southern Europe (Portugal/Spain/Italy) and Eastern Europe (although this has the post-communist collapse, so it blurs it somewhat more), and also Eastern Asian countries, are the lowest in their TFR. France is also a good example of a state that has maintained high TFR rates despite declining traditional marriage rates (although there are plenty of alternate cohabitation arrangements), while in Germany the birth rate has crashed along with the marriage rate.

While not necessarily related to the sexual revolution per se, but an example of the points I'm outlining - that it isn't necessarily possible to draw such a straight curve between more liberal = lower TFR, and more conservative = higher TFR (in fact I'd argue that the statistical evidence points to the opposite), is that higher female participation in the work force now correlates with higher fertility, by country, since the 1970s. Countries which are conservative in their social outlook like the after mentioned Southern European countries have absolutely collapsed for their birth rate, to the 1.3-1.5 TFR range.

>implying they don't
>implying that your personal conceptions of honor and dignity are relevant in determining what policies a state should pursue.

>why wait?
Because answering them with insults and fedora images won't actually convince either them or any third parties following the thread of a single thing.

Probably poor socialization in their developing years, which is actually a pretty good excuse, and the rich get access to the best possible pussy regardless of their attractiveness.

Which is why Is a good idea.

>france and scandinavia are the most fertile
And also coincidentally have some of the highest levels of immigration. Something Germany is desperately trying to catch up to right now

Why should we undo it?

French guy here.
I can confirm what you're saying. White people do not breed as much.

All this tells me is that marriage in the last 150 years has remained static with divided rates, except for the great depression

I'm not western and I want it to be reversed because I can feel it's effects in my own country and it's contrary to our culture and beliefs and religion.

The sexual revolution did not happen. From around the time of WW1 onward, changing attitudes of courtship brought about the dating model, in which it was possible and accepted to have sex outside the bounds of marriage. By the 40s, it was not at all unusual for an unmarried long-term couple to be sexually active, although this kind of relationship was believed to be an immediate predecessor to marriage.

In the 1950s, the advent of the birth control pill allowed for easier safe sex, but women had been using other forms of contraception for decade. From the mid 50s to early 70s, sexual attitudes changed, giving women somewhat more social freedom to have temporary sexual relationships.

The "sexual revolution" was a brief period from the late 60s to early 80s in which promiscuous sex was considered defiant and radical. By the 90s, this phenomenon had ended.

Have you seen any films from the 30s-40s? Premarital sex was normalized in both America and Europe decades before the pill.

American sexual activity is dropping among youth

FWIW birth-rates are currently on the rise, mostly due to increasing motherhood among well-to-do white women in their 30s

To the woman, there exist two types of accessible men : the lover and the confidant, the entertainer and the provider. The woman desires the most entertainment from the men whom she covets, with the fewest judgements from and responsibilities towards mostly every person from whom she cannot be satisfied, unless she has some fantasies about them : the impotent, the ugly, the destitute, the weak, the virgin. Each woman knows, even explicitly claims!, that she is not on earth to be prude, just as much that she knows that there is always one man more devoted, than the others, to her : her challenge is to know whether she can win even better than this goose, in seeking the ideal stability of a few relationships, more or less explicitly open, as well as the excitation from all the fun and drama expected to be offered by superior men. In one word, the woman seeks the men providing her with the playgrounds which are the largest and safest for her to enjoy her histrionic nature.

In being turned towards pleasures, the female fantasized about the life of men which would have been nothing but about pleasures, without any hardship, or at least more enjoyable than her “enslaved” life. The female has never been “liberated”, since she was never been caged concerning her love life, even though, for millennia, knowing intuitively how she behaves without supervision until her menopause, the men expected her to control herself a minimum. Her supposed novel “liberation” was nothing but a response, full of merit and pride according to her (quite expected knowing her), from the contrived prudishness of the previous generation — well, not the generation of aristocrats, for those have always been liberated, therefore fighting, through their notion of merit, against their lassitude, for decades if not centuries. After having for decades demanded from the society various perks, the woman market becomes, to those who can access it, instantly wider as well as more liquid. The questions become thus “why to enter this market?”, “how to enter this market?”.

Says who? Isn't it increasing? Kids are fucking at the age of 12 as they smoke weed.

>all those divorces after the war
lel

>The "sexual revolution" was a brief period from the late 60s to early 80s in which promiscuous sex was considered defiant and radical. By the 90s, this phenomenon had ended.
the goal of the revolution is indeed to render casual whatever fantasies held by the revolutionaries.

Women aren't the only ones to blame. Chads are to blame too.

memes do not reflect reality

usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/07/22/cdc-report-shows-declines-in-teen-sexual-activity-pregnancies

All reports on France are that the fertility effects of immigration are limited, at the most if you take away the immigrants base population is 1.9. Of the non-European population in France, you would need a TFR of around 6-7 to be able to have birth rates of native French matching Germany's abysmal numbers. It isn't like Germany is entirely lacking in immigrants either, they have a roughly similar foreign-born population number ; ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/e/ee/Foreign-born_population_by_country_of_birth,_1_January_2015_(1)_YB16.png ( source ; ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Migration_and_migrant_population_statistics )

Immigrants cannot be responsible for such a wide trend in their current numbers; there are real differences in social policy that have led within Europe to far higher base TFRs in France, Scandinavian countries, Low Countries, and British isles as compared to elsewhere.

If you want to read papers on the subject (principally about Germany, although personally my main enthusiasm is France) you can read the following;
demographic-research.org/volumes/vol14/14/14-14.pdf

ipss.go.jp/webj-ad/webjournal.files/population/2003_6/6.hara.pdf

york.ac.uk/inst/spru/research/nordic/gerpoli.PDF

uni-bielefeld.de/soz/pdf/welfare.pdf

demographic-research.org/volumes/vol19/17/19-17.pdf

> Collapsing marriage and birth rates mean every welfare state is forced into mass immigration or pensions can't be paid

Or perhaps the welfare state model is unsustainable in a world where technology and globalization have create a world with substantial overcapacity

>While a certain level of immigration is natural and healthy for countries

You mean "a certain level of the right immigrants (nonwhite) know their place and never compete with whites for good jobs or positions in government"

>the levels seen since the 60-70's are artifically high and tend to devalue lower-end job

Low end jobs will always exist and need to be low paid to keep inflation in check. Boom town economics where a McDonald's worker gets paid a high wage because everyone else is making even more money doing other things is unsustainable in the long term.

>while keeping the housing market priced high.

If native peoples were reproducing enough to paid off those pensions, the same number of people would still exist and housing would still be expensive. The price of property is driven by supply and demand. 1000 natives competing for homes is the same as 500 natives/500 immigrants competing for homes

>Crime rates have gone up

Crime has actually gone down, we just live in a world where people can hear about crimes all the time thanks to advances in communication technology

>Several studies have indictated that the number one predictor of future criminal activity is not race, intelligence or poverty, but the presence (or rather lack of presence) of a father in the household

A study can easily be manipulated depending on who is commissioning the study, if those studies were accurate then south American countries with high marriage and birth rates wouldn't be impoverished crime ridden shit holes

This is surprisingly hot.

Looks like a temporary setback

Marriage is made obsolete by contraceptives

DESU I think it's due to increasing computer usage

normies get less normie with every generation

>Implying the poor pay taxes in the first place

The poorest don't have a job, the only tax they pay is VAT etc. In places like Sweden the tax exemption is very low so the poor pay taxes that helps fund the services the state provides. Lowest paid in Sweden pay ~30% marginal tax rates, richest ~55 (50?) % marginal tax rates. Also its only the US that has the stupid prison system.

Yeah probably I'd be a different person if computers and internet didn't exist.

>perhaps the welfare state model is unsustainable
I would argue it is. You need constant population growth or the whole thing collapses like a house of cards
>nonwhite/white
Take that thinking to either /pol/ or tumblr according to your sensibilities
>low end jobs need to be kept low to check inflation
Wages should rise alongside cost of living. Immigration is used to undercut this
>the price of property is driven by supply and demand
Exactly
>crime has gone down
In your country, not mine
>studies are manipulated
Sure thing buddy. There are numerous reasons for South Americas plight. The USA blowing away any leaders that disagree with them politically for one

Thank you for the links. Though a base rate of 1.9 without immigrants is below replacement level. Better than many other countries but still a slowly dying population

I have to admit, I do find it fascinating that women can abort a child without the father's consent.

If a guy gets a girl pregnant and she wants to keep the child and he doesn't, society goes ''Tough luck, shouldn't have sex! You need to support the kid and the mother for life.''

If a girl gets pregnant and wants an abortion but the guy objects, society goes ''No! It's the right of a woman to have an abortion whenever she wants! She has no duties towards the child or the father and the father has no rights.''

Singapore has a forced savings system which people use to pay for part of their healthcare and pensions.

Wages have kept up with inflation, immigrants are people too (and lower wages means lower prices for everyone else ).

South America hasn't done that well with or without the hands of the US being involved.

>immigrants are people too
So fucking what? It would benefit the native population of every western nation in existence if they had much fewer immigrants and a higher native birth rate.

Sex is too much fun and kids just get in the way of it along with religions and pretty ethics and culture. Immigrants have that stuff so they breed fast.

...

No it's not you sick fuck.
That shit's all kinds of fucked up and fucking abuse

>implying she wasn't asking for it.

>I would argue it is. You need constant population growth or the whole thing collapses like a house of cards

A population that outstrips the ability of an economy to feasibly employ everyone and leaves large swaths of the population under the care of the welfare states will do the exact same thing

>Wages should rise alongside cost of living. Immigration is used to undercut this

Cost of living also has to be kept in check or else the economy collapses when the high cost of labor drives industry elsewhere. Low unemployment where unskilled labor costs as much a skilled tradesman or educated white collar worker creates a environment of economic malaise

>Sure thing buddy. There are numerous reasons for South Americas plight. The USA blowing away any leaders that disagree with them politically for one

Manipulating data is the oldest trick in the book, a christian "study" that promotes traditionalism is as valid as an oil company paying for a study that says humans are not responsible for global climate change. Most sociologists do agree that poverty is the mother of crime

...

The dog certainly wasn't

The dog is a beast with no morals. Why didn't he bite the man or the girl? He didn't stand up for his rights.

You are one true beta. You know that single girls who own dogs love to get the dogs to lick their pussy /?

It's a complete horror for the man too. A couple conceives a child, the relationship gets rocky, and the woman decides to terminate the pregnancy against the father's protests. Nothing can be done to compromise either, its entirely up to the woman what to do with her unborn child.

A relative of mine fell into this situation years ago, but was luckily able to convince the mother to carry the child to term. His daughter turns 16 this year, and as far as I know, doesn't know her mother wanted to terminate her before birth but decided not to, although she did release all rights and responsibilities to the child to be raised by her father.

Another one I know wasn't so lucky, and has spent every day of the past 10 years wondering about the child he could've had.

>You are one true beta
Get that alpha/beta shit out of here. It's not "beta" to beta animal abuse. It is and fucking disgusting to be attracted to that kind of shit.
>You know that single girls who own dogs love to get dogs to lick their pussy /?
And it's fucked up disgusting animal abuse committed by skickos that shouldn't be legal anywhere

It's not abusive to get your dog to lick your pussy. Most girls with a dog do it, the dog loves it.

I disagree with some the points here. Not everything is simply a manipulation game for the woman to the man, as the man gets several things out of the endgoal of marriage. Namely, he gets a stable partner and a continuation of his genetics in the form of children, along with a person to raise said children.

Which is really the way I've come to view marriage these days. It's not so much the end result of love between a couple, but a contract entered in to further the development of children and families as a whole. Anything else that comes from it is secondary, although there's other good things too.

marriage is toxic and outdated.

the person who wrote that is a complete narcissist who sees human relations as a game of ownership yet at the same time is angry at the fact that he can't "win" at the game

only chad wins at the game

Cultural Marxist

Wait, so crime didn't exist before the pill was invented? And marriage rates are now lower than 0, which I assume this chart goes down to?

This is silly user, as is implying correlation is causation. You could chuck the sale of McDonalds in there, I guarantee it's increased since the 60's, doesn't mean it's responsible.

the game is won by women

chads and robots are total betas and women are smart enough to let these two betas think that they win.

those guys want love, not sex

plus prostitutes are ugly and disgusting

It is abusive and those girls are degenerate whores with mental problems.
>the dog loves it.
Not only can you not prove that, you pulled it out of your ass

For the first time in history the majority of the population had wealth as well as other technology like TV and contraceptives.

There really isn't much more to it than that, we are like the middle class in Rome except we number in the 100s of millions and are supported by machines, fossil fuels and 3rd world labor instead of slaves. If it wasn't for cinema we'd probably see the return of gladiatorial games.

those guys were doomed to be without love the moment they were born

You're replying seriously to either a troll or bestiality fetishist user, you're not going to make him change his mind.

>feminists in the 60s
>STOP SEXUAL TABOOS, LIBERATION NOW, I'M PROUD OF MY NAKED BODY AND MY SEXUALITY !!! LOOK AT MY TITS !!!!!!!!

>feminists in the 2010s
>PORN IS EVIL BECAUSE IT OBJECTIFIES AND SEXUALIZES WOMEN AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE BANNED !!!

The main problem is ever listening to what these unhinged bitches have to say.

>Should we strive to undo and if so, how?
No, why would we? Free sex isn't a bad thing outside of a few religions and it doesn't have any cons.
The only case in which freedom should be suppressed is when it causes direct harm to people, which simply isn't the case.

Also there is the very thing we are using right now, the internet. It helps more than just the Robots, N.E.E.T.s, and the /pol/nazis to find find others with the same interests.

Pill came first. Motherhood is a biology choice women can now not default to. So they then can be just as good wage cucks as men. Like good ones they take on urban environments where you do not have reasons to male kids and have access to partners for sterile sex.
So in sum women are emancipated from the family so the state and corporations can have them.

The second group existed in the 60's too, sex negative feminism has always been a thing to some degree. The same as sex positive feminism exists now, with anti-slut shaming movements and the like.

The majority of people in those groups always considered those extremists to be idiots, and they never had any particular political sway. The difference is they were useful idiots for drawing attention in the past, whereas now they're just normal idiots who post a lot on tumblr and start ineffectual campaigns in universities.

There's nothing inherently bad about feminism, at its core it's still a campaign for human rights, and was useful here in the past (still has some use, though much less obviously, more for advocacy in cases where legit discrimination has taken place), and is still vital in other parts of the world today.

>Most girls with a dog do it

Feminism is not only useless but actually harmful in the modern western society. I could understand the middle east though.

I wish it was a bad thing

I'm a girl though and a dog lover. Guys don't know what girls talk about when there are no guys about.

They don't want love, they want an object they can fuck and that dooes things for them

Infront of me girls talk about which guy they would rather fuck, lmao. They change the subject when a real guy arrives though.

last time i checked girls haven't done much for men except make food and wash clothes and men can do those just fine these days

>I'm a girl though and a dog lover.
sure you are sonny jim
I've been catcalled by girls a few times

then how do you explain the middle east and Africa having such a high birth rate? Both of those places are extremely conservative

Not to mention India, China, etc.

I am a guy and all and look like one but girls don't seem to treat me like a guy