Has there ever been a society that took sexual purity seriously?

I hate to tell you this but a lot of those proto-Hippie transcendentalists started with Kant's transcendental idealism. These transcendentalists then significantly altered Unitarianism. Therefore Kant created the second-wave of Unitarian societies. It's easy to grasp at straws for justifications.

You know unitarians don't actually deny recreational sex between husband and wife. You're the one grasping for straws.

This

>purposely missing the point this hard
Wew

Faye Reagan

Sex is a primal urge. People want it for the same reason they feel the urge to eat and shit. Trying to repress it just leads to a society of hypocrites in denial.

>Has there ever been a society that took sexual purity seriously?
The medieval Catholic church comes to mind as a prime example of the kind of hypocritical society that springs up when the ruling class preoccupies itself a little too excessively with the moral purity of its parishioners.

Another fine example is Oliver Cromwell: devoted his career to denying material pleasures to the common Brit, but loved material pleasures himself and surrounded himself with opulence.

a smaller example is the cult of Warren Jeffs: they took sexual purity so seriously that they only wanted their little girls to marry the man who had convinced them he was their messiah, even while privately conceding in his diary that he knew what he was doing was ethically reprehensible.

>And if such society has existed, how did it turn out?
Like all societies, they collapse when their small hypocrisies go unaddressed and gradually morph into cascading system failures.

>How do you think that the views of a society on sex directly affects or is correlated with other aspects of the same society such as economy, criminality, etc.?
They don't. The material arrangements of society, the balance of capital, the relationship of labor and management, all play far, far more decisive roles.

dolphins and Bonobos don't give a shit about Immanual Kant, and yet they still fuck more often for pleasure and intimacy rather than strictly procreation, as do all higher animals including humans.

It makes perfect sense for a species that can neither read nor comprehend deontological ethics to disregard morality.

But it also means that the system of ethics is in denial of nature, and therefore out of step with the every day needs of the average person, and therefore lacking in the broad appeal necessary to construct a large, stable society around it.

Lower class filth never followed any "self made" rule/law when it comes to restraint or self control, and it was why they stayed as lowly peasants.

Middle Class and Higher Class citizens did the opposite, and it proved to help them either reach higher limits (in terms of prestige, wealth honor, etc.) or simply helped maintain those things as they passed it to their children.

Sexual purity? Alot of them. The Romans didn't use vestigial virgins for nothing.

This being said, for the common folk sex is a given.

Naturalistic fallacy. Part of being human is being above animalistic urges.

>Naturalistic fallacy. Part of being human is being above animalistic urges.
Nature, to be commanded, has to be obeyed

Surely you're fine with someone raping your mother then? It was a natural urge that needed to be obeyed, after all.

Nonsense. Humans are tribal animals hardwired for close-knit communities. Rape is aberrant behavior. Rape only occurs in select instances in the animal kingdom, and in the realm of human behavior it is ubiquitously harmful behavior.

You're swinging from one extreme to the next. Denying yourself sex for pleasure and intimacy is not the opposite of controlling your impulses, it's the counterfeit of it: eventually deprivation is going to cause you to seek outlets, however healthy or unhealthy they may be. And then you're not really controlling your impulses, you're just deluding yourself.

Controlling your impulses means releasing these urges in small, manageable doses. For the hugest chunk of humanity that means uninhibited sexual activity with a partner with whom they have committed to for life. Only a very small fraction of humanity feels sexual impulses so lightly that they only need it a few times in their entire lives and only for the purpose of procreation.

>vestigial virgins
Real got my pumpkin patched

The ancient Germanic tribes. They believed to be married and have sex was the age when you became less of a warrior and more of a patriarchal figure in the tribe, wisdom and word over spear and shield.
You know how it turned out, everyone and their mother is trying to erase this noble lineage of semi-divine men.
Monks were anything but thieves. Those who say sex is a driving factor reduce man to an unthinking animal. Man is a thinking animal. He can overcome himself and force the hand of evolution in the directions he pleases. pro-tip for evolving :Survival isn't literally everything, it's surviving with yourself that is everything.
The Germanic race is superior in every aspect and by every metric it can be measured by. Take heed and make yourself Northern.

New International Version
Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, "Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?"

>Trying to repress it just leads to a society of hypocrites in denial.
>What are monastic warriors?
You're just blatantly wrong.
Find one flaw in the medieval catholic church society, point out a single hypocrisy.
>yet they still fuck more often for pleasure and intimacy rather than strictly procreation
That's anti-evolutionary, it's backtraching and biologically backwards. The want of sex evolved from a need to procreate, not a need to procreate or procreation evolving from want of sex. Things without any sexual drives get along just fine, I expect you have some sort of theoretical proof to assert to defend such a claim of this magnitude.
Would things die out if sex was not fun? If the answer is yes, you're correct, if the answer is no, even if the population declines, if the answer is at all a no. then you're wrong. The reason being it rebuts the idea that sex is a desire like food rather than a side effect of a desire for food. or rather something which is simply there but has no action-reward sequence, it merely is, much like drinking water, animals do not value water, they do not value life, they simply are.
You've also got a need for a secondary proof for thinking creatures.

>Nature, to be commanded, has to be obeyed
prove it
I think moral imperatives are observable in the natural world because they are tangible by the accepting of certain actions as being neurologically more satisfying than others, however this satisfaction is the satisfaction of the future, an evolutionary lineage which far outweighs personal satisfaction.
>this kills the materialist
>this kills the atheist
>this kills the hedonist
Science

Purity basically meant hygiene and before modern medicine STDs would ruin the rest of your life if they didn't kill you.

>Find one flaw in the medieval catholic church society, point out a single hypocrisy.
Are you trying to make it easy for me?
cambriansd.org/cms/lib07/CA01902282/Centricity/Domain/316/Corruption in Medieval Church0001.pdf
The late medieval church was a hypocritical shitshow, and I say that as a Catholic.

> The want of sex evolved from a need to procreate, not a need to procreate or procreation evolving from want of sex.
And higher animals use sex for more reasons than mere procreation.
io9.gizmodo.com/5976425/9-species-of-animals-that-are-having-more-fun-than-you

>prove it
Visit any psychologist or psychiatrist. They'll tell you that having a healthy sex life is a normal part of the average person's routine. Even if you think that it should only take place within the confines of marriage, the plain truth is that repression is unsustainable, even when it is self-repression.

Yes.

And as for those who are unable to marry, let them live in continence until God grants them sufficiency out of His bounty, And if any of those whom you rightfully possess desire [to obtain] a deed of freedom, write it out for them if you are aware of any good in them: and give them [their share of the wealth of God which He has given you. And do not, in order to gain some of the fleeting pleasures of this worldly life, coerce your [slave] maidens into whoredom if they happen to be desirous of marriage; and if anyone should coerce them, then, verily, after they have been compelled [to submit in their helplessness], God will be much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace!

Ancient germans took it pretty fucking seriously.

Sure, societies take all sorts of things seriously that individuals manage to disregard.

>Visit any psychologist or psychiatrist
>implying serious source of any evidence

Thats how I know someone's opinion doesnt have any value.

This is a male horse user...

>Has there ever been a society that took sexual purity seriously?

"Yes! Every generation in history previous to this generation! But the current generation is degenerate and a sure sign of the end times." - every retard since the invention of writing

Western society until sexual revolution

Daily reminder anything after 1914 is cancer

>casual sex rates demonstrably explode in the 20th Century

Really bakes my beans

see

Reminder that Victorian sexual ethics were perfectly reasonable and healthy considering the syphilis pandemic raging between the late 15th and the early 20th centur.

>this one person who was a member of the top .5% of society is totally reflective of society as a whole

Who let plebbit in?

...

>Despite the edicts of canon law and the real risk of punishment, it appears that unrestrained sexual activity was quite common throughout Europe during these times. In fact, most did not believe fornication was a sin at all, and many were taken by surprise at confession when priests informed them that they had indeed sinned by committing certain sexual acts. St. Vincent Ferrer (1350-1419) claimed that by age fifteen, all young men had lost their virginity (Richards, 38). There are also suggestions that rural populations were much more accepting of illicit sexual behavior, and that country folk were viewed as much more "free" sexually than urban dwellers (Richards, 36). Lastly, although premarital sex was obviously considered sinful by the church, in reality, once couples were betrothed, they often slept together during a sort of "trial period" before the wedding. That way, if one or both were not satisfied with the results, they might still attempt to release themselves from future consent to marry (sometimes by becoming godparents of the same child, a relationship which would lead to an incestuous union) (Brundage, 436-7).

brown.edu/Departments/Italian_Studies/dweb/society/sex/fornication-adultery.php

From the same totally accurate source:

>And some of those who have been with Justinian at the palace late at night, men who were pure of spirit, have thought they saw a strange demoniac form taking his place. One man said that the Emperor suddenly rose from his throne and walked about, and indeed he was never wont to remain sitting for long, and immediately Justinian's head vanished, while the rest of his body seemed to ebb and flow; whereat the beholder stood aghast and fearful, wondering if his eyes were deceiving him. But presently he perceived the vanished head filling out and joining the body again as strangely as it had left it.[

yeah...

And then at the end of the 15th century syphilis came, and by the 17th was everywhere throughout Europe.

And?

And sexual mores in many societies shifted towards the puritanical in many places and said societies benefited greatly from it.

You're using the spread of STDs as evidence that societies were more puritanical?

Part 1 youtube.com/watch?v=-RkZXZx6HCI
Part 2 youtube.com/watch?v=7AXi4-_HPRk

You'll come out more knowledgeable on the subject of sex once you've watched this.

LOL

We know they were.

The point is "the past" is not one homogenous block with consistent sexual ethics throughout. Generally in studies of the history of sexuality the 15th century is considered the (pre-20th) peak of European promiscuity, or at least its social acceptability, followed by a sharp decline due to the causes I mention.

>We know they were.

No we don't.

Obviously "the past" is not a block but no society has been sexually pure. Victorian Britain has mass child prostitution and had to even put laws in place for hookers to be checked for STDs.

The question wasn't whether there was a completely sexually pure society, which is an impossibility.

The question was whether there has been a society which took it seriously.

And the answer is yes, and they had good reasons to.

>Vestal virgins were pure

>greentexting vauge non-arguments when the pathetic shadow of whatever argument you had is chased off by an user who knows what the fuck they're talking about
WEW
E
W

ITT: Turtles argue for the immorality of sprinting.

People can't actually be this stupid... is this what happens when virgins collect?

>99 dermatologists tell you that spot on your skin is skin cancer
>1 quack tells you that it's a speck of BBQ sauce and all those other Dermatologists are in cahoots with the pharmaceutical industry

"I have a problem with authority" is not an argument

>comparing actual med science to psychiatry

>hurr psychiatry isn't medicine
Scientology is not welcome on Veeky Forums. Nobody wants your snake oil