>The disappearance of female modesty and sexual restraint has made it hard for a man to believe, when a woman yields to his advances, that her doing so is a special tribute to his masculine powers, rather than a day-to-day transaction, in which he, like the last one, is dispensable.
Is based Roger Scruton right?
Pretty much, yes.
But he's still a pussy since he caved in due to peer pressure on the gay question.
Is Roger Scruton sincere?
He seems like one of those intellectuals that find a niche to make money of. They write what their audience want to hear, and in turn the audience buys his work to confirm their world view.
His analysis is always crude and on the border to conspiracy theories.
Roger Scruton was a paid shill for the tobacco industry.
We shouldn't use past faults to condemn somebody, because people can change, but still...
He is. Good thing what he said is of no significance.
Considering he worked in underground Universities in Eastern Europe during the cold war while espousing the same beliefs he holds to this day, it's difficult to believe he was insincere.
He is a smoker himself and a tobacco company paid him to promote smoking. He admitted to doing this at the time yet was still castigated for it.
So, what's wrong with sex being a dispensable day-to-day transaction? Why does it have to be about men with adolescent insecurities about their "masculine powers"?
So he's mad that women don't pretend he's the only man they could possibly be attracted to?
Presumably because not being able to distinguish between genuine and fake emotion is a terrible foundation for a life-long commitment
No. It's implied when he uses the word 'restraint' that they are attracted to others. The point is that modesty reduces the frequency of its manifestations.
What emotions does a woman fake when she's having sex with a man just because she wants to? It's more like the man shouldn't imagine she has any just because she have had sex with him.
Also, you should never base long-term relationships on sex.
You've missed the point, if sex is a dispensable day to day interaction then both sides would agree hence no 'fake emotions'. Without the paranoia of sexual exclusivity lovers would judge each other upon the merits of regular behaviour (i.e. your 'masculine powers')
>What emotions does a woman fake when she's having sex with a man just because she wants to?
None. The dishonesty comes when the two are to claim they are exclusive/made for each other when they have previously been promiscuous
Agreed. If that happened there would be no dishonesty, but there would also be little exclusivity other than in a self-interested way. i.e 'I'll agree to be exclusive with you if you do the same'
Sounds like a pretty autistic alternative to a social system that has been fairly well established in Christian society
>the paranoia of sexual exclusivity
Louis pls.
>a special tribute to his masculine powers
lol
Why do you want exclusivity? Sounds like special snowflake syndrome to me.
Right, so the problem is not with a woman or a man but with the outdated yet still somewhat prevalent narrative what sexual relationships should be exclusive and should be based on some form of emotional bondings. And the recent shift towards promiscuity and the rise of hookup culture is actually a shift towards honesty and sincerity away from hypocrisy and self-deception, and thus a positive development.
It shouldn't be treated like a day to day transaction because generally men will have sex with anything that moves. Women are the selective ones that generally chose the top males in society to mate with so it will naturally lead an imbalance of lower end males not getting mates. Back when arranged marriages were a thing, sex was at least somewhat spread out so that more than just the top percent of males got in on it.
>Also, you should never base long-term relationships on sex.
That is a recipe for disaster. Sex shouldn't be the only thing you base a long term relationship on, but it should defitnely be one of the important ones. I've seen one too many marriages fall apart due to lack of sex/attraction.
Are you deliberately being obtuse or can you understand for a second that people wish to live in a civilised society with customs and norms so they can live in comfort.
It's almost as if some people don't want to live in a dog-eat-dog high pressure world, wherein trust of your fellow citizen is worthless
>Women are the selective ones
Virgin detected. Let me guess, women don't have orgasms either?
>outdated narrative
Please stop with the whole 'current year' post hoc ergo proctor hoc shite. If you really believe in this Whiggish view of history then you shouldn't belief in absolutes
>special tribute to his masculine powers
Hahahaha what a fucking loser. He must be on the Mt. Rushmore of /r9k/.
>only being able to trust a person by testing them with random expectations
If you truly trusted people, you would never need to test it. By telling someone not to do something, you imply that they would have otherwise.
>women should be forced to have sex with me
I'm pretty sure you're underestimating yourself, m8. Even so, assuming there is a stratum of men no woman wants to have sex with, why do you want to construct a social narrative that forces them to?
>(all) men will
>(all) women are
I assume you can back your sweeping generalizations with some data what aren't images from /r9k/ and /pol/?
> it should defitnely be one of the important ones
I totally agree with you, I was talking about basing relationships on sex exclusively, something the post I was answering to alluded to.
The trust thing was a wider point about society operating purely under self-interest - which is the only alterantive I see when you remove transcendent obligation.
If you have a choice between two systems of thought, one which is flawed and one which is ideologically sound, which would you choose out of self interest?
It depends on the situation I'm in. It would change as my environment does.
>masculine powers
>masculine powers
AHAHAHAHAHA
Ah but the discussion of ideals is separate to reality. The application of an ideal is rarely the best transitional method. If circumstance were the only factor at play then society would never change.
Women are the selective ones, the pareto principle holds in the sexual market place as well.
Not that user, but young people don't know what they want most of the time and end up hopping from partner to partner, being miserable in the long run. I'm not saying arranged marriages are the answer, but rampant promiscuity, especially among women, definitely isn't either.
So that applies to women, but not to men?
>young people don't know what they want most of the time
>so therefore they should make life-long declarations of chastity and monogamy
lmao, are you serious?
fuck off back to tumblr or red dit or wherever the fuck you came from.
not only is it common sense that promiscuity doesn't mix with commitment, but it's been confirmed by the cdc. look it up. the higher your partner count, the more unstable your marriage.
seriously, consider killing yourself. your sjw blathering will get you nowhere on this site.
Generally it's their parents who decide something like that. And no, young people don't know what they want. Why do you think there are so many women who get knocked up by criminals, who then end up in jail leaving their kids without a father? Regardless of whether daddy government is there to pay for you or not, is that still not a horrible thing to do to your children?
>outdated
>all data on relationships says it the best way to live
>provides the most stability and healthiest environment for your offspring, giving them the highest change for a successful life
>outdated
You're also implying that monogamous "traditional" relationships are inherently founded on hypocrisy and self-deception, and that is definitely not true.
Intellectualism/philosophy is the most useless branch of knowledge.
That partner count thing. Did they specify on wether high partner count among men lead to infedelity or vice versa?
t.brainlet
>sweeping generalizations
To have any conversation about a large group you will always have to generalize. I'm on my phone right now but the studies on male/female attraction are out there. Men fucking anything is very well known. Look at how much promiscuity goes on in the gay world. I'll try to get you some sources when I get on my pc.
Chastity and monogamy isn't the best answer but it's better than what we have now. Hook up culture is dangerous for society.
>female modesty and sexual restraint
I love this Victorian-era meme. People used to just fuck on the streets like animals.
Yes, he's right. 400 years ago.
They did, brothels also used to be widespread, it was still a sin to attend
Because then the children will grow up in a stable environment, also children will actually be born rather than have a nail stabbed through their spine
It sure sounds like the problem your describing is parenthood. Does a women who gets knocked up by a criminal not choose a monogamous partner? Is she not being 'faithful'? The ideal of monogamy in no way implies what type of person you should be with, only that you should be with somebody. The culture and morality that guides a person's romantic choices is a culmination of all beliefs, not just their ideal family model.
> being miserable in the long run
Married people are miserable too tho, just look at the divorce rates.
> promiscuity doesn't mix with commitment
Who said something about "commitment" being a desirable thing tho? "Commitment" is just another word for monogamy, thus hypocritical and self-deceptional position. You shouldn't be forced to "commit" to anyone, that's my point.
> producing successful offsprings is the meaning of life
Why tho? Humans are not instinct-driven animals, we can have interests in life outside mindless procreation.
> monogamous "traditional" relationships are inherently founded on hypocrisy and self-deception, and that is definitely not true.
Because you say so? Divorce and infidelity rates say otherwise, people don't want to be monogamous.
> Men fucking anything is very well known.
Right, but are women actually different, or is only because of the dominant narrative we expect them to be different? Post-sexual revolution situation supports the latter, and this is why conservatives are so butthurt.
Why build your life around children tho? Don't you have your own life to care about?
>people don't want to be monogamous.
And yet, the vast, vast, vast, vast, vast majority of people are, to the point where most people will never meet a non-monogamous person.
Really makes you think.
Because they are told so, this is why it's called dominant narrative. The infidelity and divorce rates and the rise of hookup culture show what people, shockingly, don't actually practice what they preach.
If history were commanded by the whims of the majority then things would never change. Reality has no bearing on ideology.
Studies show that marriages in which partners have had less (and even more so no) premarital sex are less likely to end in divorce. It is arguable that biologically we are not monogamous, however in society the family unit is essential.
ifstudies.org
Not to say all is lost when someone has had sex with another partner, I personally believe it is the mindset of committing to one person that is essential. If you are a virgin, worry not. However I imagine most people browsing this website are not virgins by choice. My point still stands though.
Any opposing opinions on this? I'd like to hear the perspective of anyone who disagrees with me on this.
Well, what you're basically saying is that institutionalized monogamy benefits from the partners being monogamous, that's no brainer.
The real question is, how essential is institutionalized monogamy for society and would people be happier in general if they weren't presented with it as the only "correct" way of formalizing their relationships? I personally do believe institutionalized monogamy is a relatively recent invention (sometimes after the agricultural revolution) and isn't essential for society.
Like another user posted, are there any studies comparing marriages that end with the male having a high partner count and the woman having a high partner count?
Im talking from experience here but a man whose been around the block a few times is more likely to settle down. Not so much for a woman.
Not him but I think that there is biological evidence that monogamy is naturally desirable for many people; especially girls. In my experience in fact, fwb is really a meme. Sooner or later, when cuddling afterwards and that hormone kicked in, feelings of pair bonding develop; especially (but not only) from the girls side. From an evolutionary standpoint, it makes more sense to want to stay with a man that makes them feel safe and secure for her sake and for the sake of children. Of course there are exceptions and there are definitely porn-tier girls that have male-tier sex drives and desires but they're more exception to the rule. My gf and I started out as fwb but we are together exclusively now. Previous fwb relationships I've had ended in hurt feelings more often than not.
Dude it's been going long before the agricultural revolution. And I think you're under the impression that we continue fucking like we do during our 20s-40s.
This whole instutionalized monogamy thing sounds alot like sjw horseshit. But let me humor you and say that it is. The stats the anons have shared prove people from strong families are more likely to succeed. Why would you want to change something that works?
Veeky Forums incarnate
You fucked up senpai. You never cuddle with fwb and keep kissing to a minimum. Bam wam thank you ma'am. Oh well hopefully you're happy with this girl.
Sounds like some excuse a beta would make.
I don't know about you guys but I haven't fucked in about a year.
>how essential is institutionalized monogamy for society and would people be happier in general if they weren't presented with it as the only "correct" way of formalizing their relationships?
Who the fuck cares if people are happy if society descends into political and economic chaos?
4 years in November for me.
Reaction in an Age of Decadence
>men will have sex with anything that moves
Don't forget the necrophiliacs
Even from the girls side, for a girl to agree to have sex with you, you have to woo her. That the difference between male and female sexuality. We don't require that shit though it makes it that much better if we do feel that connexion. So in a sense, some degree of "pair bonding" is necessary for her to agree to do anything with you at all; again barring some exceptions. When girls go against their nature and become promiscuous, it's because they've unwittingly emotionally bonded themselves with multiple guys and they end up burned out of oxytocin by the end of it. It's not their fault; it's their biology. With exceptions.
This is what religions and conservative values intuitively understand; though it's possible to go too far in this extreme as well
Shit phone poster here, forgive typos
> Why would you want to change something that works?
> Who the fuck cares if people are happy
That's the problem, institutionalized monogamy doesn't work anymore, people aren't happy, see the depression, divorce and infidelity rates. It's the same argument as with popular religion - it had it function and it was an overall positive thing for some time, but the recent developments made it unnecessary and in some instances even harmful, yet many people still pretend they're religious while their actions show they aren't and it's better to just drop the act. Same thing with monogamy.
>institutionalized monogamy doesn't work anymore,
But people still overwhelmingly are monogamous, they just practice serial monogamy, and it's simply easier to exit relationships today compared to previous eras.
How did men and women get so far apart?
High quality post so you are forgiven. The oxytocin thing is definitely true. Which is why I feel bad for women who think fucking as many dudes possible is "liberating". In the long run it ends up hurting them.
Check out Jordan Peterson on YouTube. You'd like his lectures.
Well, you're kinda right, but I see it as stepping stone towards eventual desacralization of marriage. And I wouldn't agree on "overwhelmingly", with all the cheating and hooking up going on around.
Still, most of the people who are monogamous are so not because they're inherently monogamous, but because they value their current relationships more and dominant narrative makes monogamy the base of any serious relationship, thus making polygamy incompatible with it. I believe eventually stigma against polygamy will fade away and people will be able to have meaningful relationships without sexual exclusivity, and I do believe they'll be living more fulfilling and happy lives as a result.
Sounds excessively postmodern to me.
Remember that whatever you think is valuable to deconstruct, applies to whatever you want to construct.
If you're going to say that monogamy doesn't correlate at all with the natural state of human sexuality, than that applies to all forms of sexuality and there are no correct answers.
I think I'm going to kill myself
Even if the human body prefers monogamy, that doesn't imply it should be absolutely enforced. What would be wrong with a woman who has a single primary partner (for bonding and family purposes) and say every 3 years has a single sexual encounter. That wouldn't affect her oxytocin levels, would it?
Also the male body is pretty much designed to fuck whenever it pleases, yet I doubt you support men doing that. Why should the accepted system bias in favour of protecting women's mentality? Men are 3 times more likely to commit suicide, at least in my nation. Your attempts to 'protect women from making the wrong decisions' is nothing more than misogyny which supports the very feminist institutions you seem to oppose. Men need protecting from women.
Just because it isn't natural doesn't mean it can't work. By deconstructing the previous system, we allow ourselves to begin the discussion of what should be done. All the time wasted cheating and sleeping around should be spend in serious philosophical and sociological discussion.
For example if you have a computer code that has an error rate of 20%, you would try to design a better program right? That better program may have a rate of 18%, so you could still theoretically design a better program. Does that mean you wasted your time making the second program? Should you have just continued to use the first?
> there are no correct answers.
This is basically my point. I'm not saying we should ban/discourage monogamy or make it shameful to be monogamous, I just think people need to have all the options available without society looking down on them. Well, as long as it's consensual and no one is being hurt ofc.
"Better" in reference to what exactly?
Society and social systems aren't computer programs with a set goal that works on syntax created by programmers.
I mean, take for example the argument that if global society was socially engineered to be homosexual from birth, this would literally mean the end of humanity because nobody would have children.
That is, assuming that you think that sexuality *is* socially constructed.