Did the average high schooler lose his/her/it's virginity back in the 1950s like now

He's probably right, but not by the reason you think. Today those who lose virginity early do it earlier than before, but far less people manage to get laid these days, so the average is higher today than before.

Dang statistics always being misleading

So chad and stacy is having sex earlier but the rest of us are not having sex, and statistically people are having sex later?

Fucking classic.

heh

Well, judging from part of this infograph how in the 70s about 20% of women were virgins till marriage, I'd say it was probably a bit higher during the 50s

Woops here it is

>all that sexual revolution did was make far harder to non chads/stacies to have sex or marry.
Stop externalizing your own inability to get laid. All it did was make people more aware of behavior which was previously happening behind closed doors or in cities hundreds of miles away. Non-Chads have it easier than ever, assuming that their expectations stay realistic and they don't chase women hopelessly out of their league, and women can get dick so easily it's a joke.

> How people can think that someone that cuts his dick of or like being humiliated is more health or less "repressed" than a regular guy in the 50's?
Nigga you think there weren't German businessmen in the 50's paying hookers in latex catsuits to whip their behinds and call them little boy? You think it makes them less of a man, that they want a little escape from being in control after a long ass week of being in total control? You think there weren't sissies prancing around like women begging bears to come up and ravage their boipuccis? In certain places of the world it's a venerable cultural tradition. The only difference is that now, thanks to technology, forest apes cloistered in their rural shitholes are now coming to terms with having to share the world with them.

All that shit was around back then, the only difference was that people weren't aware of it, so people got away with doing more fucked up shit because people were not making informed choices about their sexuality.

It's sad when someone had to fake the past to be "right", it's just sad. Tell me more of those imaginary secrect and supersexual 50's, please.

No. Average high schoolers were bit more conservative. The only ones having sex back then were the "bad boys" aka the delinquents. Most high schoolers just listened to their parents.

>It's sad when someone had to fake the past to be "right", it's just sad.
But not nearly as sad as a virgin sitting in his room longing for a disneyfied and hopelessly naive and inaccurate vision of the past on Valentine's day. As soon as I'm done typing this I'm going to go have sex with my wife, I'm nobody's Chad and I never had a problem going on dates or meeting women. The only guys I knew who did were always autistic spergs who should spend less time watching porn and playing video games. In fact they probably would do better in life if there was an authoritarian government or oppressive conformity culture forcing them to get off their ass and participate in the world.

>Tell me more of those imaginary secrect and supersexual 50's, please.
It was like today, but shittier. And the further back you go, the shittier it was. That's what history is for, teaching you how to appreciate and function in the present and be glad that there's not somebody else's boot around your throat telling you how and when you should be exploring your own sexuality.

>That's what history is for, teaching you how to appreciate and function in the present
I don't think history is for making people accept your ideology.

I know you really value your "sexual freedom" and all that bullshit that you brought, but this don't give you the right to rewrite history in your favor,

>I don't think history is for making people accept your ideology.
All of the research suggests that people actually had more sex in the past than they do in the present. My goal is getting people to give up their pointless ideologies and embrace the stark realities that big data is making available to us

You know that big data is about great amounts of information, it's not a free pass for revisionists like you or those of ghost time theory.

>, but this don't give you the right to rewrite history in your favor,
Nobody's rewriting anything, you're only learning that the truth isn't what your favorite propaganda tells you it is. Just because the media painted a rosy picture of American life doesn't mean that there wasn't strife bubbling beneath the surface, people were only better at hiding it and there simply weren't as many opportunities to get informed, or to make informed choices

You should be that hippocratic, just because some non-history areas of college painted a rose picture of the dark secrets of past doesn't mean that there wasn't different customs, people were not exactly like someone born in a different society with a different education and different customs, but hide because some reason (extremely convenient reason) that was just "discovered" in the past days.

>it's not a free pass for revisionists like you or those of ghost time theory.
The only one revising anything are the people trying to paint the 50's as some sort of long lost golden age that we need to return too.

They want girls to go back to wearing dresses down to their ankles and for people to start going back to church and they want negros back out of the picture, but they sure as shit don't want the tax rates or the empowered unions that dominated post-New Deal America and permitted most families the luxury of being single-income.

These golden-agers are buying the hype, rather than examining the picture with clarity

>hippocratic
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant: I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

The Hippocratic oath remains an indispensable tool for physicians. Not entirely sure why you're bringing it up.

you really believe that anyone with a honest interest in history and truth is somehow secretly wanting to repress the sexuality of everyone? That the only reason for seeking truth is being a virgin that can't get laid?

You really should learn anything about scientific method, you would be surprise that sexual theory, psychoanalysis and this alternative reality you call history doesn't fit.

Well it is easier to have those when you have most the world's GDP at the time

No, everyone I know with an honest interest in history and truth actually comes to embrace and appreciate the gradual tendency of human society towards increasingly benevolent forms, and recognize that the past is something to be studied and appreciated as an end in itself, not glamorized, whitewashed, and shoehorned to fit a political agenda

Using an unrelated graph without inflation, changes in tax system,... to prove a conspiracy about hidden sex.

>not glamorized, whitewashed, and shoehorned to fit a political agenda
He says as he posts a political propaganda chart.
Fuck off.

God this thread is fucking garbage

What you call history is just a prophetic ideology, that say whatever path where are walking is good, because "HISTORY" told us so. You really should learn the basic about history and science.

Dude he posted an actual chart not an infograph

History is not about showing how better recent ideologies are from the rest, this is propaganda's job. History is about knowing about the past, about truth.

I think they call you a revisionist because you are not talking about the same thing. All of you are right. All studies show that people lost they virginty later. Married earlier. Had much fewer partners. On the other hand they had a lot more sex than nowadays. Mostly because it's much easier to have frequent intercourse in the framework of a stable relationship.

>Stop externalizing your own inability to get laid.
Just pull up yur bootstraps bro. Who cares if things are generally worse off after the sexual revolution people have to be individuals man.

I'm calling here a revisionist because of this:
"That's what history is for, teaching you how to appreciate and function in the present..."
"No, everyone I know with an honest interest in history and truth actually comes to embrace and appreciate the gradual tendency of human society towards increasingly benevolent forms..."

>The Virgin phantom killer vs The Chad

peak social darwinism

Note that the pill was introduced in 1960.

you're still just muttering incoherently
So we can revive certain parts from history but not others, even though its all completely anachronistic and context-sensitive?
> to prove a conspiracy about hidden sex.
There's no conspiracy, the data clearly shows people had sex more often back then, and they also talked about it less. They were less informed and made less informed decisions, and most of these decisions would have simply been bad ones that were covered up because the less sophisticated technology let people get away with more. It's a simple and clear interpretation of the data.
>Fuck off.
Man I fucking triggered the virgin brigade tonight. That's not a "political propaganda chart" dingus, it's a fucking historical graph showing what tax rates were in the 20th century. Facts matter
>What you call history is just a prophetic ideology,
He said, longing for the good old days when non-chads supposedly got laid more
>showing how better recent ideologies are from the rest
I always saw it more as showing how useless ideologies in general are. Pic related
Even if that weren't totally wrong, uncomfortable freedom is better than a gilded cage

there are SOME benefits though. STDs are less rampant than back then because people are more willing to talk about them and they are educated about what they can do. for example: syphilis.

>uncomfortable freedom is better than a gilded cage
ill take the cage

>STDs are less rampant

>Implying today society isn't plain better as HISTORY! teach us

See
You are all in agreement just not aware of it.

I always surprise myself on how people think that if something has the word "freedom" in the name, it's automatically free and good.

See
This will never reach an agreement

I say any attempt to "return" to the past is totally misguided, based on faulty notions regarding the "end of history" and are as such doomed to fail.

You want people better behaved? increase funding for education and healthcare, especially in poor and rural areas. Wagging your finger at them is worse than useless, it's often destructive and harms individuals and becomes a rationalization for mistreating or neglecting them.

ah yes very good

It always surprises me how there are people in this world who crave another person's boot on their throat.

>increase funding for education and healthcare, especially in poor and rural areas

Underrated. Hilarious on Valentine's.

freedom

nothing wrong here

I wouldn't expect anything less from someone who has turned ignoring data into a pathology

It always surprises me how there are people how will fight or tyrant and to put a boot on everyone throat just because someone told they that it's "freedom"

land of the free

show me the data that shows more money improves education
America spends more per capita than any other country on healthcare already. You need to totally rework both systems not just turn up the volume.

That's not true. It varies for each disease. For Gonorrhea the 50s are comparable to the 2000s. both are much lower than during the peak of the sexual revolution. Chlamydia has grown ceaselessly and is much higher nowadays. Herpes is also a lot higher. Syphilis is lower. AIDS was inexistent in the 50s.

>forcing people to stay in loveless marriages is good
braindeadwojak.png

also this is a world wide trend, not just american.

You know what's is the biggest change sexual "freedom" introduced in woman's live? It was work, woman that used to stay at home now have to work to maintain themselves or a family, the right to have to work... life has some kind of irony in the end.

>show me the data that shows more money improves education
That's not what I said. I said that it needs to be distributed more evenly, pumping more money into higher end schools isn't going to make Cletus and Jamaal out in the sticks stop being little thugs knocking up girls and going to jail
ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/may02/vol59/num08/Unequal-School-Funding-in-the-United-States.aspx
cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/most-states-have-cut-school-funding-and-some-continue-cutting

>America spends more per capita than any other country on healthcare already.
Mostly due to administrative overhead propping up a private system and making it seem like the government isn't as involved with it as it actually is.

If this is your data, please, don't show any more data.

>letting children have single parents is a good thing

Yes it is. Love should never have become the only criteria to assess the viability of marriage.

What's the matter? Not biased enough for you?

Stormfront would be a better source, no surprise you believe in HISTORY! and don't know a shit about history

wat

These are psychological theories (not scientific if you want to know), not a single decent statistical correlation. Markov will cry if you call this data.

>fighting with someone all your life and setting bad examples for kids is a good thing

than whats the point if you hate the person youre spending your life with? it will just end poorly anyways so just hurry it up and leave.

>/pol/fag unironically thinks stormfront is a viable source
HAHAHAHA

progshill are unable to understand irony or an exemple of bad source

That wasn't me, the guy you were responding too, that was people laughing at the sheer incoherence of your arguments

>he thinks people in the 50's weren't just as horny as people now, and that they weren't constantly talking about fucking and slipping innuendo into their popular media

>not trying to hide it behind a facade because you love your children and want them to grow up good, atleast grow up enough to be able to take your separation without massive long term psychological concequences

That must be why those children with one parent or only visit their dads every few weekends are so well adjusted right

>not having children in an open relationship

>How people can think that someone that cuts his dick of or like being humiliated is more health or less "repressed" than a regular guy in the 50's?
LMAO well put
"The worst deviants are always devout conservatives", say that to my throbbing red asshole you dragon-dildo owning cunt.

>Stop externalizing your own inability to get laid.
*teleports behind externalization*
*projects more externalization*
Heh, nothin personnel

That would certainly help a society keep itself anarchic and selfish

Are you implying modern society is "selfish and anarchic"?

>But scruples, which thought created, now exist and can certainly be eliminated through thought. But this thought, this critique, achieves this aim only when it is egoistic thought, egoistic critique, i.e., when egoism or self-interest is asserted against scruples or against the uninteresting, when self-interest is openly professed, and the egoist criticizes from the egoistic viewpoint, rather than from the christian, socialist, humanist, human, free thought, spiritual, etc., viewpoint (i.e., like a christian, a socialist, etc.), because the self-interest of the unique, thus your self-interest, gets trampled underfoot precisely in the sacred, or human, world, and this same world, which Hess and Szeliga for example, reproach as being egoist, on the contrary has bound the egoist to the whipping post for thousands of years and fanatically sacrificed egoism to every “sacred” thing that has rained down from the realm of thought and faith. We don’t live in an egoistic world, but in a world that is completely sacred down to its lowest scrap of property.

Except children, especially adolescents realize it was a lie and once they do it'll make them distrustful of their own parents and others

As long as it isn’t a violent relationship the kid will be better off with both parents for it’s first 10-15 years

I’m used to debating anarcho-egoists, also order over individuality, that doesn’t mean they can’t coexist though

No. You generally lost it when your dad/older brother took you to a brothel, probably some time in middle school or junior high.

Order would have to come before individuality, if I were advocating some kind of half-baked libertarian socialism, which is the problem with idealistic anarchism. But I am not in favor of the primacy of the idea of the individual, I am in favor of the primacy of myself.

Order and egoism are not opposed, as you say. But the most enjoyable and interesting order is a voluntary one. The other sort is to be dealt with as little as is possible.

nah, he's right, all you'd be doing is teaching your children to build their relationships on secrets and lies. When people are given freedom they copy what other people are doing, and they learn by the example set by their parents.

Also, the multigenerational household is the ideal way to raise children, according to science. The father doesn't even need to be in the picture, when its lots of adults raising fewer children, they tend to grow up much more well rounded

If only for the subtlety of thought, expression, and interaction that has been abolished, the sexual revolution should be frowned upon. People are less creative and intuitive as a result. There is less stimulation across the spectrum. A certain amount of forbidden subject that is inherently benign allows for an area of play without drastic consequence. It's a matter of balance.

> People are less creative and intuitive.
What? They aren't less creative by any means.

This confuses me, the pill is supposed to stop you from getting pregnant

I believe they are. If you compare historical movements relating to creative outbursts, you may make many connections between cycles of relative formality and informality.

Creativity is still there, it's just been professionalized so that there is less "high" art, I.E. Less art being funded by the state as a permanent statement of culture, and more art that is "low" art, or created for commercialistic purposes and is disposable by nature

>the main characteristic of "high" art is state approval and support