Was the sexual liberation a net positive?

Men still have strong sexual instincts so provoking them like that is just inhumane, it borders on psychological torture. It's like walking through a junkie neighborhood covered in cocaine.

>we need to curtail the rights of hate groups such as Nazis to speak publicly in order to protect society.
t. soygoy

what a faggot

>children you can't afford and children born without all necessary attention and care from both parents are a problem
>problematic children not born anymore
>only those who can afford being loving parents are having kids

Where is the problem? Why do you want children being born only to kill themselves at 20 because mommy hates them and has called them a useless piece of shit that should kill himself since age 5?

>Its a positive for women
It's not even a positive for them.
>Yay, now I have the freedom to be peer pressured into letting dozens of men use me as their cum-rag during my youth and never actually start a family so I can die scared, forgotten and alone of dementia with no one to care for me in my declining years!

>each generation inherits an even larger amount than those before them

So each generation becomes richer than the generation before. That's excellent.

Anything that gives women freedom is a negative.

>Where is the problem? Why do you want children being born only to kill themselves at 20 because mommy hates them and has called them a useless piece of shit that should kill himself since age 5?
because everyone born before the 1970 was a suicidal, emotionally abused trainwreck
get real guy

Isn't memri legit Israeli propaganda?

> this whole fucking thread

>>/r9k/

>only those who can afford being loving parents are having kids
Made me chuckle

Yes also hello satan my old friend

yes

>only those who can afford being loving parents are having kids
It's literally opposite. The problem is that stupid people don't think before they get pregnant whereas smart people do.

Those children are still being born dumbass, the difference is that now loads of "the loving responsible parents" never actually have children because they foolishly think that just because they don't feel 100% secure in life that they're not ready to start a family.

It'd be nice if we had unbiased statistics, alas most of history is too tainted with bullshit for that. Just look how suicides were swept under the rag for centuries because suicide was idiotically considered a sin.

But women abusing and neglecting their unwanted sons into mental illness is a thing, user. Decree 770 in Romania forced women into getting pregnant en masse. The generation that it produced was violent and criminal because they were all hated by their mothers.

>only those who can afford being loving parents are having kids
That's why Cleetus McTrailertrash has 4 kids with his sister-cousin and Shaquisha has 3 kids with the baby daddies out of the picture while your average academic couple usually has 1 or 0 children

Forcing them to have kids when they aren't secure is only going to make them hate and resent the child though. Romania tried it, it didn't work.

In the past wealthy people had more kids, post sexual liberation the poor have more kids. That cant exactly be good for the kids.

Who said anything about forcing them Mr. Strawman Slayer?

Smart women know that having children is a burden in their life, that's why they fight against idiots like you.

>wealthy people had more kids

Nope upper classes always had 1-2 kids on average while the poor had many. It all averaged upon reaching adult age though because the rich kids were more likely to all grow up while the poor kids were lucky if 1 or 2 of them survived.

Back when women used to have more kids, the maternal death rate was something like 5-10%

Correction: The maternal death rate was around 2.5-5%. The Infant death rate was the higher one.

yes

not him but muslims and mormons shit out children while feminists have hardly any then your cause will go extinct, this is pretty obvious and if you genuinely cared about morals

feminism (as it stands) is not a moral cause or you would have reasoned this by now and tackled the issue, no matter how unpopular it made you to bring it up

first and foremost on your minds is getting more hits on your blog or soothing your fears and anger, you're not actually good intelligent people, like you claim

No.

Yea but that doesn't make it good for society, does it brainlet?

Dude

claimed that smart women aren't having children while stupid ones do.

>muslims

Huge birthrate decline in their countries too, on par with western countries. Second generations in western countries don't have kids either.

>mormons

Losing members all the time because guess what, children grow up, see your bullshit and grow out of it. Atheists are growing in numbers while christianity dies, and that's good.

>tackled the issue

Well women want money, comfort and good living, without renouncing their personal life to look after a baby who is too dumb to be left alone. So pay women good money to become mothers and build 24/7 daycare centers where they can leave their kids when they want time for themselves. Also make humanity evolve so kids become responsible for themselves sooner and don't need 24/7 supervision for an unacceptable number of years.

>Allowing women to expose most of their skin in public
>Teach children things about sex they needn't know and which only attracts them to perverted actions
>Spread pornography on large scale
>Generally declining morale and effiency of family-structures beeing subsequently reduced
>Sexual diseases spreading
>Birthrates lowering due to contraceptives and abortion becoming legal and common
>More divorces and more stress in life due to constant sexual competition
>Left-leaning-Liberalism becomes the standard ideology
>Degeneracy in culture and Entertainment,public is turning naive
>Gender-roles and conservative structures of stability getting destroyed,because the main requirement for sexual liberation is just that,causing society to become individualist and create general idiocy through apathy
>Also causing the defeat of classical moral,a decline in members of religions and religious meaning and influence to thinking and the removal of traditional and basic values
>Feminists and lgbt hypocrits become normal

Genetically, women are supposed to choose the most fit partner, while men look for the physically most attractive, either way it results in most of the population producing offspring and beeing satisfied. Materialisation and liberalisation of women and the idea of throwing everyone into a pott and letting them fuck each other if they want is causing all social problems regarding sexuality and gender we have currently in the western world.

Women should have protection from violence,harassment and should have the opportunity to participate in society and think for themselves, but there are is a thing called "natural order", it went well until some certain people came.

Only if you’re a troglodyte

Who is society? Women too are part of society. Why should they care for what is good for society when society (represented here by you) doesn't care about what is good for them? If you're forced to have a child, might as well abuse him and neglect him to ensure he either kills himself or becomes a serial killer. If the former, you'll be rid of your burden. If the latter, you'll be rid of your burden and get some sweet, sweet revenge on society too.

>t. Friedrich Shiller: Ode to Soy

t. Soyrich Soyller: Soye so Soy

>Atheists are growing in numbers while christianity dies, and that's good.
You disgust me.

It is incredible the amount of stupidity people say in Veeky Forums nowadays, we receive a new influx of stupids from /b/ or what? is Veeky Forums the next board to fall to stupidity?

You are basically the stupidest person in this entire thread
>Implying semantics works in real world

So please explain to me why most children that are born come from poor families, and people with higher IQ beyond a certain number usually have less children? your concept does not make any sense in real life, turn more then 18 before commenting here please

No the idea of sexual freedom the way they sell has many problems, they sell the idea that women should look for accomplishment in the workplace to fulfill their lives, and while it may be true to some, to most it does not... People were never been as unhappy as they are nowadays, the amount of psychological diseases affecting both genders had a peak in the last decades, depression? it is common as fuck in more industrialized countries

We live in a fast society without roots, everyone feels insecure about pretty much everything, and that is one of the main reasons why right wing is becoming more supported on young people.

Was sexual liberation positive?
Well time will have to say, but things are not looking pretty well

White European, north Americans, Japanese, and classes that have a very connected culture will disappear in the next decades(Hur Dur but you are saying black people are not civilized?)

Black people in US have a different culture, they have an different dialect, and their culture will take the culture of the status quo and while it will assume some aspects we don´t know for sure how it will plays out.

So we don´t know for sure, things must change if anyone wants to actually maintain western society as it is today, it is not sustainable, and we are not in a big crisis because there are still cultures producing kids so the economy maintain itself.

Sexual liberty itself is not the problem though

That's a natural reaction, tbqh.

>Having children isn't good for you.
Wow.

Appeal to nature is a fallacy.

>Birthrates lowering due to contraceptives and abortion becoming legal and common

And that's a good thing, since children are either stress, costs and lack of opportunities for the mother if not carefully calculated for or a burden on the collective if abandoned. Gotta spread it to Africa too though.

Are seriously this fucking damaged that you honestly see passing on your genes to be a negative?

This. Menial wageslaving and importing iq 80 hordes is the way to go

Child = +costs -time

It's not bad if you can afford it and have the resources to organize yourself so that you can keep personal time and income for yourself, I guess.

What else are most people going to do with their time u fag

Cont.

Right wingers, usually offer a hierarchy of things, ideals, things that us a society should seek

Left, usually question those ideals

We nowadays have a lack of ideals and that naturally turn a society into a hedonistic one, it has happened before and they usually crumbled marvelously and I would not be surprised if it happen again.

We live in a continue wheel, but like I said sexual liberty is not the problem, is the lack of greater ideals related to family

This is an infantilized man, modern society brought several of those and women as well

Hedonistic, only think of the pleasure of the moment, cannot handle stress

Do you actually think having a child is only stress, costs?

You think like a moron, in a way I am glad people like you won´t be in earth one hundred years in the future, I hope I was there already

No, I see no longer having time and money to use for myself as a negative.

Getting filled with big black cocks, of course.

Literally everything you do in life = +costs -time user.

Why exactly do you feel spending money on a Hummel figurine collection is a better use of that cost/time penalty than fulfilling your sole biological imperative?

>People were never been as unhappy as they are nowadays

How do you know though? Back then a lot of things that are correctly identified now were simply thought to be Satan doing things. If women fought for the right to better their living conditions through paid work, it's because they were unhappy with their condition before. Hysteria existed because women had no way to express their sexuality.

>passing on your genes
Well I come from an 80 iq horde, so I can imagine a decent number people having a problem with that.

Because being happy and satisfied with myself and my life is my sole biological imperative. That's why I avoid things that are +costs -time and add no positive. Why do you think I'm male though?

So what's the plan for reversing it. Make birth control illegal? Start enforcing sexual purity laws, or forcing women to marry and have children?

>idiotically considered a sin
To kill yourself is indeed the most idiotic act in the world

>Because being happy and satisfied with myself and my life is my sole biological imperative
Objectively false
You only exist because your genes got passed on, you will only continue existing through your genes

Have you ever considered the fact that children give something back to us emotionally?
Because we're biologically driven to produce and care for them?

Romania did all that with Decree 770! And these were the consequences.

>Many children born in this period became malnourished, were severely physically handicapped, or ended up in care under grievous conditions, which led to a rise in child mortality

>A consequence of Ceaușescu's natalist policy is that large numbers of children ended living in orphanages, because their parents could not cope. The vast majority of children who lived in the communist orphanages were not actually orphans, but were simply children whose parents could not afford to raise them.

And also

>In their book Freakonomics, authors Steven Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner make the argument that children that are born after their mothers are refused an abortion are much more likely to commit crimes or refuse to recognize authority when they reach adulthood. They further argue that the Decreței are exactly the same people who spearheaded the effort to violently overthrow Ceaușescu's regime in 1989. In that year, the oldest Decreței would have been 22 years old, in the general age range of most revolutionaries. Levitt and Dubner note that Romania was the only east-European communist country with strict anti-abortion and anti-contraception laws at the time, and also the only country whose ruler was violently overthrown and killed at the end of the Cold War. Most other such countries experienced a tumultuous, but peaceful, transition.

I think it's really just a cultural problem.

Nuh uh, onleee stah wahs mek me heppi!

Your objectivity doesn't mean shit to me wherever my life is concerned, since I'm the one that has to live it therefore my subjective judgement > your "objective" bullshit.

>you will only continue existing through your genes

Nah, it won't be me just like I'm not my grandparents.

I'm sure with the right conditions, children can give a lot, however they don't give anywhere enough sufficient if said conditions aren't met.

Huh, that's interesting. I'll have to read more about it.

>how to have a violent revolution in 20 years or so: the post

God has given us the power of free-thinking and in your opinion we shouldn't use our mind to learn and understand ourselves and the human nature, that what distinguishes mankind and how it works?

>And that's a good thing
Modern Problems of mothers are caused by the sexual "liberation". In the mind of progressives children should be raised to be efficient and obedient workers in School and parents will improve the way of raising their children if they get more money. Nowadays you need to have enough money for consumerist luxuries, yourself, the state, your family and your children in order to have the latter.
In fact you should have children because they are simple creatures in which we can find a mirror of ourself, of course they will also inherit your posessions and place in Society after your death. Descendants are the only Thing that remain of normal human beeings after their death, otherwise they don't have any chance of leaving a mark on earth, which is a thing that is generally driving us forward.

Of course mothers have problems with raising their children if they never were told how to do so, often are insecure, without a husband, live without much money, in a country with an inefficient economic and welfare system, children beeing allowed to behave like they want.
>lack of opportunities
>if not carefully calculated
That's the problem, children are not an economical issue, yet, are treated as such.
Keep away your theories about collectives and individuals.
>Gotta spread it to Africa too though
Now ask yourself why this hasn't already happened.

ftp.iza.org/dp4200.pdf

By this study women are getting more and more frustrated

I am not talking about the 1800

I am talking about >1960

>Women are earning more then men in early ages
>Women are going to colleges way more then men in almost all western countries
>Women are less likely to depression and of being homeless

And still they are not happy, while it maintained itself stable I strongly believe this is going to change in some years...

The biggest lie the new society we live tells to women is that most of them will find realization in jobs

To most men this was not the case, yet they wrongly thought that job = happiness

Personally I think most men and women are simple creatures, men used to love hunt and women used to love taking care of children and the well being of their village, and in the end of the day fuck like animals, like a man and a woman.

Sexual liberation is something cool, but the way it is presented has many flaws, and society is not getting happy with that.

Like I said, the right wing is increasing as a counter movement, I strongly believe that our society will swing back to a at least more hierarchical society more conservative with more ideals.

Fuck does not make anyone happy

You see that a Society, in which time and money are the most valuable things, is not healthy, right?

But wait, there's more!

>within two years of its formation [of Decree 770] the total fertility rate grew from 1.9 children per woman, to 3.7. This increase, however, was not long-lasting as women began to seek illegal abortion. When the birth rate reverted back to its original figure, Decree 770 was modified to be more stringent, with divorce becoming highly restricted and other policies introduced. These included a monthly tax for all childless people twenty-five years or older regardless of marital status and mandatory monthly gynaecological examinations for every woman of a child-rearing age, in order to monitor for signs of pregnancy.

>Although financial incentives were offered to families who had more children, these could not sufficiently cover the costs of raising a child. As a consequence, countless women lost their lives receiving illegal abortions. By 1989, Romania had the highest maternal mortality rate in Europe with 159 deaths for every 100,000 live births.

>However, the most distressing consequence of the pro-natalist policies was revealed following the death of Ceaușescu. In 1990, international journalists were permitted into Romania, and haunting footage began to emerge throughout the world of dirty and crammed institutions, never meant to be seen by the public. An estimated 100,000 abandoned children were living in appalling conditions in state-run orphanages. Starving, naked and neglected, they were forced to live in their own waste. The child-to-caregiver ratios ranged from 10:1 for infants, to as a high as 20:1 for children over three, leaving these children severely deprived of any affection.
>but hey forcing women to have kids will totally make them love them guys

No, it was a massive mistake, alongside the enlightenment and the reformation.

>Comparing former socialist Romania country to Europe and US

The state of Veeky Forums, they should ban posters for being idiots

Plus ban the other idiot who was saying about enforcing women to get pregnant by law

What is going on in this place for fuck sake

>Because being happy and satisfied with myself and my life is my sole biological imperative.
And you genuinely believe having children is incompatible with you being happy and satisfied with your life?
>Why do you think I'm male though?
What gave you the impression I think that?

>children are not an economical issue

Yes they are. They cost money, time and opportunities. That's why women have kids only after they have secured money, time and opportunities for themselves first, married women of middle and upper class.

>children should be raised to be efficient and obedient workers in School

That's a conservative thing though.

Sounds like a bogus study considering no woman wants to renounce her job if it means losing her financial security. A husband isn't financial security sadly since his money is legally his and not exclusively yours.

>the right wing is increasing as a counter movement, I strongly believe that our society will swing back to a at least more hierarchical society

And will get destroyed again once those at the bottom realize they're stuck at the bottom with no way of moving upward and making themselves, their life and their position better, That's how you'll have the 4th Wave.

Everything else is just useless, sentimental, unfounded shit.

>And you genuinely believe having children is incompatible with you being happy and satisfied with your life?

>It's not bad if you can afford it and have the resources to organize yourself so that you can keep personal time and income for yourself

Why do you keep saying that? You're the one that's thinking in absolutes here. I said it depends whether on my conditions are met or not.

>What gave you the impression

Collecting figurines.

What people think they want, and what they actually want are often not the same.

> I strongly believe that our society will swing back to a at least more hierarchical society more conservative with more ideals.
Hopefully.

And you haven't thought for yourself a single day in your life. It's hard to take offense from a robot being disgusted by you

Romania was the only country in the Eastern Bloc to get obsessed with birth rates and Romanian women aren't any different from other European women.

>Romanian women aren't any different from other European women.
inb4

If you have a child with someone, yea, you have to support them.

>romanian "women"

>I said it depends whether on my conditions are met or not.

and I'm saying that people have an exaggerated sense of what those conditions are because they don't understand how important having children is. I guarantee there are loads of unimportant things you will temporarily sacrifice your standard of living for, but somehow the idea of sacrificing your standard of living to have children is a bridge too far. To be clear I'm not saying run out and have kids, I mean seriously stop for a moment and consider all the consumer nonsense people work overtime and scrimp and save to achieve without question while reproducing, the most basic of biological functions is viewed as an unaffordable luxury!

>Collecting figurines.
Google Hummel figurines.

Supporting =/= having the money at your sole disposal for whatever you want, wherever you want it, whenever you want it, especially for personal purchases. Want to buy something for yourself? With someone else's money, the other person still has veto power over it if they don't see the necessity as you see it. With your money, no one has veto power over it. That's why women want their own money just like you do.

Oh user, if only you knew just how much I've thought about things, how many years of observation and dialectic it took for me to arrive at where I'm at today.

>With your money, no one has veto power over it.
This may come as a shock but most people in life never actually accumulate enough cash to have "fuck you money" where they are able to live outside of the veto power of banks and city council, and if women are holding out for that before they have kids they're in for a rude awakening.

But the society they live is, culturally they are different as well.

Precisely

>Sounds like a bogus study considering no woman wants to renounce her job if it means losing her financial security. A husband isn't financial security sadly since his money is legally his and not exclusively yours.

Yes the money is shared between the couple, but this is not my point...

Actually plenty of women like the idea of a prince taking care of them, as far as I am aware women still like powerful men.

You are basically turning down evidence because it contradicts your believes, I really don´t have to elaborate another theory I just showed it is wrong, you should research and actually read the study before claiming it is false.

>And will get destroyed again once those at the bottom realize they're stuck at the bottom with no way of moving upward and making themselves, their life and their position better, That's how you'll have the 4th Wave.

>Over simplifications
>Implying the third wave is ever going to stop by their own philosofy

Internet is a boring place to have a discussion, I won´t go any deeper It takes to long, a real life discussion would have more value

>Yes they are.
Or better said, they were made such.
You don't need to have a top-knotch-income, so that your children constantly live under a large amount of wealth, basic needs and upbringing can always be assured in western countries. Obviously working class families should normally have the most children, as they are, surprise surprise: the fundament of society and make up the majority.
In my opinion opportunities and income are not as crucial if you have a true, minimally regulated laisse-faire capitalist economy with low taxes.
In Germany for example(I think in most of Europe it's worse), someone from the middle-class can make between 2000-4000 Euros, yet between 30-40% of his income will go away to taxes, considering that he will want to maintain a middle-class house with gas-electricity,water, wll spend on food,clothing,private investments and consumer goods&entertainment and probably has taken a loan with high interest, this person will have no money at all left for raising his children in a western manner.
The market should satisfy the needs of the individual, never should he serve the economy for the sake of it. If taxes were lower, education was better and the role of corperations and banks to the economy would be reduced and small companies,entrre-preneurs and hard-working people would be released and the flow of money and goods, the establishment of the economy itself as opposed to it beeing connected to the state, should be passively supported by the latter.

Traditionally Europeans have raised their children, even in unfavorable conditions and to all odds. Now, we have a potentially great situation, in which we can have a sufficient amount of children, all of whom can live a decent life and build up their own life.

I needn't tell ya that abortion is immoral.

>That's a conservative thing though
Yes it is quite, but it is executed with an immensely autistic and technocratic approach. To summ it up it's shit.

>people have an exaggerated sense of what those conditions

People see what happens when you're poor, and having kids you can't afford is one quick and easy way to become poor. People are willing to temporarily sacrifice their standard of living for things that are A) guaranteed to return a positive and B) temporary, i.e. short in time. 18+ years as a kid requires isn't anywhere short in time, plus there is no guarantee the child will become a decent, independent adult. What if you end up with a neet, /r9k/-posting, mentally ill son that still leeches off you at 40 and refuses to do anything to better himself? A dead kid would be better than any shit like that.

>the most basic of biological functions is viewed as an unaffordable luxury

No.

1) The most basic of biological functions is breathing and that's still free.

2) Raising kids WELL is seen as something expensive and that should be carefully calculated, because it is. Would you be okay with people shitting out babies and tossing them in a dumpster or dumping them in foster care en masse?

>How to derail a thread in one simple step: The post

It's not even a matter of fuck you money, it's a matter of having personal income available to you for your personal spending without interference from anyone, especially your husband. Be real user, banks and city councils don't have veto power over your personal shopping.

>18+ years as a kid requires isn't anywhere short in time,
The problem is that you think an 18 year old requires the same level of financial and time investment as a 1 year old. Every year that a child gets older is an increase in the independence of that child and a decrease in the minimum mandatory costs required to sustain that child, for example you don't need to hire a babysitter to care for a fifteen year old but you need one for a five year old.

>What if you end up with a neet, /r9k/-posting, mentally ill son that still leeches off you at 40 and refuses to do anything to better himself?
Then you clearly fucked up raising the kid and it's doubtful your child-free life would magically be more stable since your children are a reflection of you.

>Raising kids WELL is seen as something expensive
And it shouldn't be. Raising kids well is a product of attitude and dedication not financial investment.

>it's a matter of having personal income available to you for your personal spending without interference from anyone, especially your husband.
Why do you think your partner shouldn't have a say in how you spend your money? Notice that I'm saying partner and not husband. Do you think a wife shouldn't have a say in whether or not her husband uses his paycheck for gambling rather than the family?

Families are a unit user, not a convention of lone wolves that are allowed to fuck off at any time for any reason.

>the society they live is

Nope. Obsession with birth rates is a western european, fascist thing, not a communist thing.

>culturally they are different

Have you ever been there? It's no different from any other EU country, it's only poor and corrupt. But there's lots of countries in the EU that are poor and corrupt.

>the money is shared between the couple

Not as the woman wants, and not as much as the woman wanrts.

>Actually plenty of women like the idea of a prince taking care of them

Because the prince spends all his riches on her, never says no and never denies her anything, and will always have the means to always give her anything she wants. It's a nice fantasy, but reality doesn't work like that.

>You are basically turning down evidence because it contradicts your believes

It contradicts my experience and the experience of those in my circle. Which people did this study interview, exactly?

>Over simplifications

That's exactly what happened already though. Women were worse off than men socially and economically, so they fought against that. You make women worse off again, they will fight against you again because nobody wants to live a life they hate. Simple as that.

>The problem is that you think an 18 year old requires the same level of financial and time investment as a 1 year old

Never said that. Costs actually increase over time if you want to grant a good quality of life.

>Then you clearly fucked up raising the kid

Thanks for admitting people have a point when they say they are not ready to have kids. You blame any failure in upbringing on them and guess what, they do too.

>Raising kids well is a product of attitude and dedication not financial investment

Attitude and dedication don't bring in income in the bank account to buy things you need unless you're using them for your job.

>Why do you think your partner shouldn't have a say in how you spend your money?

Because it's my money and not his, and I don't want a partner who doesn't respect that. I decide what I do with myself, what I want, how I conduct my life. This is non-negotiable, it is better to stay alone than to be with anyone who doesn't accept and respect that.

>Do you think a wife shouldn't have a say in whether or not her husband uses his paycheck for gambling rather than the family?

I think a woman shouldn't be with a man who does things she doesn't approve in the first place, or divorce immediately if he starts doing them. I'm also for complete separation of property during marriage so she can walk away with everything she brought in the marriage.

>Families are a unit

That one chooses. If said unit is forced upon, or it changes irreparably, it's no longer the unit that was first chosen and should be broken off.

Not really a derail desu.