Is western society's current hypersexual state a permanent thing or part of a cyclical phase?

I'm not so sure. It's not like there are child prostitutes in Hyde Park. Young noblemen can't just grab village wenches and rape them, pay off the family, then ride on happily.

>Unlike many chroniclers of gay culture, Ackroyd doesn’t neglect lesbianism: we are gleefully taken on a tour of the dildo shops of the Georgian city – it’s said that one establishment in Leicester Fields sold nothing else – and behind the closed doors of cigarillo smoke-filled Edwardian clubs such as the Cave of Harmony and the Orange Tree.

>London, a major city of millions of people had 4 back alley dildo shops lol drump #BTFO

Found the club slut. There are good reasons to moderate sexuality. We are way beyond "not being prudish".

>immorality
Well spooked mein Neger! As if it would be up to you to define the sexual standards for mankind.

>Wow leftypol got here quick
It's almost like this board isn't /pol/ and rejecting reactionary social norms is normal here :^)

>Is western society's current hypersexual state a permanent thing

Yes? Blame the scientists who invented the birth control pill.

Even if I grant you that there's something unique about Western sexual openness, it's not caused by ideology, it's caused by advancements in science.

The fact that women can now control their sexuality completely, and are not bound to get pregnant with the first person she has sex with, changed the history of humanity forever.

>We are way beyond "not being prudish".
You obviously aren't. Is this some /r9k/ I'm underfucked and frustrated thread or is this some /pol/ I feel morally superior to everybody else thread?

>The fact that women can now control their sexuality completely, and are not bound to get pregnant with the first person she has sex with, changed the history of humanity forever.
Yes, with a bit of luck we can stop population growth, especially in the 3rd world.

Back in the day, roughly 1 in 5 men lost their virginity to a prostitute. Yes, I think it would fly on this scale, and not much would change.

>Ponte delle Tette is a small bridge in Venice, Italy. It takes its name ("Bridge of the Tits") from the use of the bridge by prostitutes who were encouraged to stand topless there to entice and convert suspected homosexuals.
>The Carampane di Rialto was one of the red-light districts of Venice in the fifteenth century, by official decree. Sex workers there would open their legs wide or display their breasts from nearby balconies to attract business. The Serenissima supported this heterosexual sex in order to help stem the tide of a growing wave of homosexuality, which had grown into a social problem.

Population growth naturally slows down when infant mortality is low and the cost of having children is high, like you see now in first world countries.

>prevelanvr
I have no idea what word you were trying to spell.

What's the point of replying to me with this?

>implying this was good

>Even if I grant you that there's something unique about Western sexual openness, it's not caused by ideology, it's caused by advancements in science.

Nothing new under the sun user. People been doing funky shit all along. Your great-grandma owned a dildo once

it is because of condoms and modern medicine

There have been more sexually excessive cultures than our own.

Individualism brought to its logical extreme end: a war of all against all, where the only thing that matters is chasing a feeling, a momentary illusion of personal well-being.

Yeah I said, "even if I grant" meaning "for the sake of argument.".

I wasn't agreeing with OP that there is anything particularly "hyper" about Western sexual openness, especially considering that even St. Thomas Aquinas found prostitution and brothels a "lesser evil" 800 years ago.

>Not even him but you are you unironically trying to say ours isn't the most hypersexualized culture ever?

Yes. Sexuality is actually declining, if by that you mean promiscuity, depictions of sex, etc. We are in an age where it's very destigmatized, but that's not the same thing. Younger people are having sex later and less often. Rape is declining, child brides have dramatically declined, etc.

Normally I find blanket statements and book analogies trite but our (((society))) really is/becoming brave new world. Hux talks about casual sex and pills. Go to Newcastle or London any weekend night and look around.

Name them

Pretty comfy if you ask me. Nothing wrong with a little fun.

Yes, thanks to birth control and the pill.

Precolonial polynesia, Roman Empire, 17th and 18th centuries europe, various indigenous groups of the Americas, ancient egypt, bonobos.

Rome
16th Century Venice
Ottoman Constantinople
19th Century Paris or London
The modern West pre-AIDS - things were much looser in the 70's than now.

>rejecting reactionary social norms is normal here :^)
>implying
You raiding faggots are not even nearly the majority here.

We are less hypersexual than you think. Like, way less. History is full of lewd stuff since forever.

Remember when the Pope had official mistresses at the Vatican and Rome was the whore capital of Europe?
Or the council of Constance, when they had to ship in whores from 300 miles around because all those clergy boys needed lots of fuckmeat?

Millenials are having less sex than previous generations though

That's worse.

That has nothing to do with the prevalence of sex in culture, and everything to do with the fact that disintegrating social mores is causing the harem-ization of sexuality.

Millennials on AVERAGE are having less sex, but only because 5-6/10 women have stopped going for 5-6/10 men and started wasting their 20s being easy lays for Chad Thundercock.

You forgot your "REE"

>everything to do with the fact that disintegrating social mores is causing the harem-ization of sexuality.
>Millennials on AVERAGE are having less sex, but only because 5-6/10 women have stopped going for 5-6/10 men and started wasting their 20s being easy lays for Chad Thundercock.
I'm sure you can find proof for these grand, sweeping statements.

Social mores aren't disintegrating, people's minds are.

Cry more, nerd

What a fucking shit thread.

> roman orgies

Mostly christian propaganda

Check out ancient history bro.

If they had the mass media and internet we would see the exact same shit.

Sex happens, people bitch about sex then it happens again.

Calm your jiggly man tits.

>Your great-grandma owned a dildo once

Highly doubtful.
As is typical with cosmopolitan libfags they project the debauchery of a handful of cherry-picked cities and project then upon the entire world. It's as if some hyperfaggot in the year 2533 were to use contemporary San Francisco as evidence that it was the fashion 2017 for men to walk around in rubber gimpsuits, and frequent gloryholes.

People have been hypersexed since monkies. Its just we don't tear our sexual competitors nuts off anymore.

Well at least not in the Western World...

Your great grandma had sex enough to have surviving children that grew into adults.

Considering that is a high number, your great grand-mother is a slut.

solid point

None of that implies ownership of a dildo, and your strawman of a /r9k/ "all women are sluts" opinion is irrelevant to me.

It's really not doubtful. Dildos have been found in all cultures in all periods. It's a pretty obvious invention with very few moving parts.

I hope you realize that happened because the average non whore put out a lot less back then prior to marriage.

NIce goalpost shifting

This

>OH YEAH? WELL 0.00001% OF THE POPULATION DID IT! SEE, NOTHING CHANGES!

...

So, in other words, all that moral stricturing didn't stop degeneracy at all, just forced people to hand over a few coins to soothe their consciences?

>but only because 5-6/10 women have stopped going for 5-6/10 men and started wasting their 20s being easy lays for Chad Thundercock.

This is literally true for absolutely everything you moron and has always been true.

Just like 2000 people in the world own 8 trillion dollars, some very few people have a lot of sex, while the rest don't.

It's literally called the Pareto principle.

its a capitalist thing

sex sells

in the context of society its a result of the breakdown of stable sustainable structures, which again is a capitalist thing

developed capitalism in its neoliberal for has basicaly reduced family to a temporary 3 part unit and marriage to a luxury

nowdays reproduction is seen as a sort of infliction, you can actualy hear women say shit like - ''she got realy fucked you know, she got pregnant in her 20is''

sex is all thats left
the basic existential stability and longterm structure necesary for people to want to have kids is gone, even the culture no longer suports it

its like a fucking calhoun rat experiment

so sex is all thats left

women are screwed tho, in such conditions its just a matter of time before the majority of the male population figure out they dont have to compete at all, they can just fuck each other and have the exact same result; a series of frustrating short-term primarily sexual relationships that do not end in either childrren or marriage

and then you die

Well uh if one in five men were visiting hookers to lose their virginity obviously non whore women were not giving away pussy like candy, right? Therefore there was less net "degeneracy".

it's a phase that islam can fix

>dildos have been found throughout history
>therefore your great grandmother owned one
Does not follow.
Pants have been worn around the world throughout history too, that doesn't magically mean my great a grandmother wore pants.

>Generalising all of "western" society

If people in every past culture were so chaste, why were STDs so common? Something with the Jews, maybe?

those are our values right now and our endgame. hardly will be permanent but there is plenty room for becoming worse

>ut only because 5-6/10 women have stopped going for 5-6/10 men and started wasting their 20s being easy lays for Chad Thundercock.

Hurr durr

Except for all the women that were making money off of giving their pussy like candy. And of course, all the men patronizing them. You really don't think they just went once, did you? How the fuck do you even measure "net degeneracy"?

>why were STDs so common?
I presume you mean syphilis, in which case it was because the majority of women did not put out, so any man that had a passing inkling of getting his dick wet would frequent the same group of disease vector whores, get infected and then potentially pass it on to their chaste wife, who could then conceivably pass it on to her children.

That's the thing about STDs it only takes one exposure to get infected, so it's entirely plausible for a man to engage in recreational sex with a human toilet only once in his life and contract a disease that would haunt him and his family until the end of his days. Which is why those societies placed such a high on morality, the stakes could not possibly be higher.

>tfw virgin for all highschool
where's my place in that chart? i find it raisist

A dozen men fucking a handful hookers because the average girl still considers chastity an important thing is reflective of less general promiscuity among women, right? I mean I don't even understand what we're arguing here.

>some women were whores therefore most women were whores
Non sequitur

idk man, just because pedos can't legally and acceptably pull children off the street doesn't mean that it isn't a phenomenon. desu there are a lot more pedophiles out there than most people realize

>so it's entirely plausible for a man to engage in recreational sex with a human toilet only once in his life

And you honestly think that's a common scenario? If people were really getting all those various STDs at first exposure, you really think anyone would do it?

not him but life was pretty boring until something like 50 years ago so you would have to find some hobby
risking shit makes you feel alive, if you know that feel

millenials are having less sex on average, but it doesn't have anything to do with "chad thundercock." sexuality has opened up to the point where you can just get online and beat it, so there's really no point in putting THAT much effort in getting a gf

>I'll just ignore that if 1 in 5 men lose their virginity to a hooker, there are probably all sorts of men who are patronizing them who say, didn't lose their virginity to a hooker but then decided to do one after fucking the local milkmaid or whomever. But sure, it was a small minority of men.

>I, on the other hand, am just an idiot.
I like how you call non sequitur to a post that is itself one. Are men just incapable of degeneracy? Is a society where a large percentage of men frequent literal prostitutes for paid sex not a degenerate one?

"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."

>sexual mores were always the same everywhere always, sexual habits didn't wax and wane between more permissive and less permissive throughout history, it was always the same everywhere MTV told me so because they ran a five minute spot on tv about ancient dildos therefore your great grandfather owned a fleshlight™ just like we do
Ugh why even bother coming to a history board.

Of course. Women weren't fuckin naked and up to anything 24/7

It's not about it being the same it's about /pol9k/ tards conflating the hypertechnologically advanced 21st century with earlier time periods.

Just because it takes you 5 seconds to see more female nudity than a serf 500 years ago because of the internet, doesn't mean that the serfs 500 years ago didn't have degenerated sexual encounters.

I mean, just read some Chaucer; there's plenty of pretty crude sexual jokes in there, and that's 400 years ago, an era where the Church supposedly had a monopoly on public morals.

This
10/10

agreed.

my only solace is that i think a lot of people are going to end up very unhappy with the decisions they've made

agree

These. People have always wanted to fuck and if they could do it they would. Whatever religion/sexual morality many said they had was just an excuse to say they didn't, when they did

>Is a society where a large percentage of men frequent literal prostitutes for paid sex not a degenerate one?
20% is a large percentage in your opinion?

>people made crude sexual jokes
>therefore they had tons of casual sex like people in the age of tinder

It's a sign of the end of that current civilization.

Every society you've named was in their decadent stage just preceding collapse.

I'm not him, but yes. But they were actually way more. Or do you really thing the only guys fucking prostitutes were the ones that lost their virginity to them?
Hell, he actually already made that point in the post you are replying to.

Puritanism =/= Moderation/Decency

This either/or mentality is a product of the post-Industrial West. People were on average more sexual than puritanical societies but less sexual than the industrial excess we have today.

Sex has never been so directly tied to profit in so many large sectors of the economy.

Very few people have "tons of casual sex in the age of tinder".

Tinder is a distributed computational device for women. Only the men who are attractive enough get a lot of hookups, and what constitutes "attractive enough" gets more and more narrow everyday, until only a small proportion of men get the action and the rest barely get any.

>roughly 1 in 5 men lost their virginity to a prostitute.

I'd just like to point out that people in this thread are accepting the validity of this statistic for no real reason other than because some user said so. I mean seriously think about it for a second, how would you even arrive at that statistic? It's not like they went around taking sexual surveys "back in the day", which I presume means pre-20th century, or else why bring it up at all?

Either user pulled it out his ass, or some Marxist professor did.

Except that's completely false...

>Very few men have "tons of casual sex in the age of tinder".
ftfy and it doesn't detract from my point. The fact that Chaucer cracked a fart joke does not mean the average medieval wench got anywhere as much strange dick as a modern thot.

It's from Freakonomics 2.

people like you weren't taken into account

Your romanticized view of a society where sex only existed in the missionary position for the explicit purpose of reproduction is ahistorical you moron. Deal with your shit.

>western women finally free of dysgenic arranged marriages
>they're free to fuck the top 20% of Chads to their hearts content
>the end result won't even be eugenic because of birth control and abortions
they had ONE job

So are all of these anons who are talking about how the old days were a purer time putting the pussy on a pedestal?