What is some literature that explores the social constructs that artificially restrict sexual activity...

What is some literature that explores the social constructs that artificially restrict sexual activity, such as marriage, monogamous relationships, ethics, morals, etc.? Is there any reason to believe that degeneracy emerges from increased sexual freedom in a society?

Degeneracy emerges from pandering to the masses.
Read Adorno and start being suspicious about the common man ( without losing sight of your love for him) and the institutions that create contents for him. There is no high art and high value in what is made for everyone (and there is even less value and even less art when the only reason for that creation is monetary).

>There is no high art and high value in what is made for everyone (and there is even less value and even less art when the only reason for that creation is monetary).
Why?

Kek

is there any reason to believe it causes degeneracy? no, besides political allegiance.

ill recommend you some Levi Strauss books, He explores sexuality among other things in tribal societies. I dont think sexual liberation makes our socities more degenerate but i think its the repression of the sexual desires what causes a lot of desviations. Also i have been reading a lecture that Michel Foucalt gave called "Abnormal" where he reconstructs the history of the aberrations, from the slightiest change to the most degenerate one.

It's a self-evident statement, to the point of truism. The major proof for it is the artistic and moral wasteland that mainstream entertainment (both international and national, no matter where you live) is.

Sexual freedom does not result in degeneracy. There have been plenty of civilizations throughout history that have been sexually deviant, yet a wholesome society overall.

Modern day degeneracy is a result of giving women equal rights. Sexual freedom is just a secondary effect of that.

The common man is as mediocre as the common woman.
The problem is that our society is now built upon the act of satisfying the maximum amount of people, which results in the decay of everything that is worth creating.

fkn pseuds

>muh degeneracy
Why are you here, /pol/?
Let the normies pursue hedonism if they wish. It will only lead to their own unhappiness.

There is literally nothing wrong with hedonism. We should all be allowed to indulge in our sexual desires at any time in a perfect society. :^)

Nothing of value can be easily acquiered. And all the masses want is ease of access or so they're told. I wish to read more about this bald jew.

Look no further.

There is literally no such thing as a "perfect society." Stay haunted boyo

What good is your sexual "freedom" when everybody can, yet nobody wants, to fuck you? Try as you might, you will grow old, impotent or in menopause too.

Women live longer than men, and yet their value becomes next to zero in their 50s, for crying out loud, and you wonder how could it possibly be that a woman would support "obsolete" ideas over marriage and sexual mores?

Do you want to lower the age of consent as to make yourself be worth even less in the marketplace? Do you want illiterate 16 year old kids or younger to steal what little romantic opportunities you were given so bad?

When there are no social, let alone legal, boundaries left, men and women scorned and betrayed will still seek a form of compensation, but the hard way. Barbarism on top of barbarism. Do you not see enough crimes of passion, vengeance, uxoricides in the news? These murders happen not because of a conspiracy of the powerful Big Other. Being abandoned hurts. It's a particular kind of pain, that is contagious, which reminds me of STDs.

Sexual preference is exclusionary, anti-democratic - "barbaric" if there ever was such a thing worth calling that - the clearest sign we're animals pretending to be domesticated.

Yes, there's a social construct going on, perhaps it's time to entertain the notion that maybe, just maybe, the social construct was constructed for a reason.

Ugly people shouldn't breed. The exclusive of nature of sexual preference is a good thing. With sexual freedom, the forces of nature would do their work, and the beautiful would breed with the beautiful, producing more beautiful children, while the ugly would be cast off to the wayside, eventually to become extinct, as they should be. Nature has no sympathy for those who are unfortunate enough to be undesired. Nature is not democratic. No matter how much her faulty fruits try to protest, they will be eliminated with time.

Total dumbfucks also breed more than more intelligent people.

good post

I mean you're just asserting though. You've come to a conclusion that mainstream entertainment is a "moral wasteland" without providing what that really means. The ubiquity of an art form really tells nothing of its morality, but rather its complexity.

>There is no high art and high value in what is made for everyone

Another assertion i'd have to take your word for, no thanks, please elaborate.

The beautiful do not create exclusively beautiful children nor do the ugly create exclusively ugly children. Lowlifes and wretches come from either. It's random, and mother nature or natural selection doesn't give a fuck about your concepts of beauty. It's chaos and some autist's specific, to you "ugly", trait might be perfectly suited to fit the environment. You don't know.

Everyone deserves to and should have kids just because of the chance of creating something better. Conversely a wretch of a human being can also teach valuable lessons.

>You've come to a conclusion that mainstream entertainment is a "moral wasteland" without providing what that really means.

It means that mainstream entertainment is downright corrupting. It sedates you, it focuses your brain on the most shallow things, and the aesthetic experience per se is virtually worthless.

>The ubiquity of an art form really tells nothing of its morality, but rather its complexity.
>Another assertion i'd have to take your word for, no thanks, please elaborate.

It's not a principled statement, rather a pragmatic one. It's no matter of speculation, you just need to look at it and describe what you find. There is nothing worth saving in our mainstream, nor there has it been in the last 90 years, and what is worth preserving is usually what deviates in the first place away from this swamp.
There is no need to build any sort of argument for this statement, you just need to aknowledge the fact that no masterpiece has ever come out of anything that was mainstream (which in this case means anything that is produced in order to please as many people as possible).

>no masterpiece has ever come out of anything that was mainstream

But masterpieces are turned maintstream all the time.

It means that mainstream entertainment is downright corrupting. It sedates you, it focuses your brain on the most shallow things, and the aesthetic experience per se is virtually worthless.

What, in your opinion, isn't shallow and corrupting? these words are alluring please define them

>There is nothing worth saving in our mainstream, nor there has it been in the last 90 years

there's a lot of literature, music, films that i'd like to preserve that are probably mainstream by most people's standards..

>It's not a principled statement, rather a pragmatic one.

This is why you're not convincing, especially in the regards to art lol.

Having sex without the intention of producing children is the definition of degeneracy.

sexual freedom only sucks when the society itself is shit

when being a selfish asshole isnt rewarded, the issues surrounding sex tend to alleviate themselves, but any society more complicated than indians with bones in their noses in the amazon will inevitably have a shitload of problems

and fundamentally sex only for pleasure is degenerate

dear lord you are dumb. Take a statistics course, and then a biology course too. Correlations have exceptions. Genetics are determinant of characteristics with a strong correlation.

BolaƱo writed because he needed money and his stuff is pretty good imho

Adorno btfo

And why isn't it vice versa?
What makes our independent art worth savoring?
Why is the mainstream art condemnable?
For example, why isn't art created in view of monetary gain as admirable as art otherwise?
You've stated many things without necessarily providing why they are not otherwise.

Why should sexual freedom be considered desirable? Could it be merely the contrarian nature of us that would force us to believe something as such? And if not, why? And what validates the other perspective over the one identified here?

Marriage, monogamous relationships, ethics, morals, etc. are not social constructs, they are adaptations that allowed humans to prosper and create civilizations. I'm sure you could be recommended some deconstructions of them by your nearest English professor.

...

those are pre-agro cultures

>Marriage, ethics, morals, etc. are not social constructs

>they're not social constructs, they're objectively extant and useful social constructs

The levels of ideology in this post have broken my scouter

exactly. sex before mediation by law. you claim they are adaptive behaviours but anthropology paints a different picture.

The problem I have with this line of thinking is that it tends to imply it is only the woman who is oppressed by limiting sexual freedom through things like marriage. What often seems to go unmentioned is that marriage is also a cultural tool to induce men to become productive contributing members of society. While the historical motive of certainty that you were not raising some other guys child is not much of a factor anymore, people still seem to generally ignore that marriage as an institution is generally a tool for civilising men and incentivising them to be productive and engaged in their community.

Why work some shit job for 60 hours a week? Why get involved with my local civic institutions? Why give a shit about the property values and character of my neighborhood? Because I've got a family to support and now I have an incentive to give a shit and bust my ass so I can put food on the table and ensure my kids grow up in a safe neighborhood and get a good education and whatnot.

If we got rid of all of these "social constructs", why would I bother dealing with all that bullshit? I'll just play vidya and fuck sloots on Tinder.

This user has it right. I renounced women when I finished college, and now I'm teaching math 20 hours a week. My job is easy and I make enough money to survive on my own and have leisure. I do nothing but read and work out in my free time since I'm not trying to attract a girl, and I'm not supporting a family.

If all guys did what I did, society would collapse. I realize I'm barely contributing anything.

why should you contribute, all youre doing is holding up shitty banks and people on welfare, governments guve no incentives for giving effort, they only punish you and enact laws to prevent you starting your own shitty business to exploit people

>writed

lel
wrote*

The anthropologist has only one job: to promote the leftist agenda. They should not be trusted.

chris ryan is a degenerate who hates commitment, he also simultaneously hates american poltics, left and right

damn. =/ this is now a /suicide/ thread

I wrote a musical about this in high school: Pretty people take over the world and send all the ugly people into space. It's as bad and full of plot holes as you probably imagine. Hard to believe I wasted most of my time at college trying to get it performed.

I'm not from /pol/ but I am very skeptical of what they tend to classify as "degeneracy". Why not let other drown in the cesspool while I do my best to strive for the heights? Because the peaks are lonely, user. Seeing the people I care about become unhappy or drift toward a lifestyle I fear will lead to unhappiness is upsetting. There are normies I love and I don't want to see them destroy themselves.

You're not taking our advancements in birth control into account, nor are you considering that there are things besides beauty that are of high value. Beauty is extremely important but intelligence, strength, creativity, ect. are too.

Pretty much everybody who denounces sexual "degeneracy" is a secret cuckold who gets excited by the idea of a woman getting fucked by another man, but they don't admit it.

Yes, they are social constructs. That doesn't make them good or bad. It's just what they are.

Where'd you get that idea?

FUCKING STOP IT GOONAN

>be me
>just started nofap

There is literally nothing wrong with hedonism. We should all be allowed to indulge in our sexual desires at any time in a perfect society.

>There is literally nothing wrong with hedonism.

besides being retarded, in the most literal sense of the word

yes, I too have thought many times about how egregious a sin mental retardation is. basically your worth as a human and percentage of moral purity is pre-determined by your genetic code.

>basically your worth as a human and percentage of moral purity is pre-determined by your genetic
Explain

I think you mean pair-bonding and exclusive cohabitation... and yes marriage/monogamy is an important matriarchal institution. It is so primeval that whether it is an adaptation-proper or a sociological process is up for debate.

when a mommy and daddy love eachother very much they bump uglies until the egg in mommy is fertilized. mommy and daddy's chromosomes come together to form a baby. sometimes a mistake is made and baby ends up with an extra chromosome. baby is then brought into the world a slow deformed psuedo human being. and this is wrong -- like super wrong morally. and there you go, there's proof that being retarded in the most literal sense of the word is wrong. also jesus hated retards just look it up in the bible.

beauty is the final frontier

get your musical "rediscovered" sometime in the future and be remembered as a genius

>perfect society

kek

Yeah well that's the kicker isn't it? Probably not going to turn out very well.