J.D. Unwin on the correlation between sexual liberty and cultural downfall

Fulton Sheen – The level of any civilization is the level of its womanhood

In Sex and Culture (1934), British anthropologist J. D. Unwin “studied 80 primitive tribes and 6 known civilizations through 5,000 years of history and found a positive correlation between the cultural achievement of a people and the sexual restraint they observe.” Writing in his blog, “Disfigured Praise: Affliction for the Comfortable,” Jonathon McCormack comments on Dr. Unwin’s findings:

“After studying cultures as diverse as the Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, and dozens of other groups, Dr. Unwin found a 100% perfect correlation between the practice of heterosexual fidelity and cultural development. As Unwin wrote, across 5,000 years of history he found absolutely no exception to his rule:

“These societies lived in different geographical environments; they belonged to different racial stocks; but the history of their marriage customs is the same. In the beginning each society had the same ideas in regard to sexual regulations. Then the same struggles took place; the same sentiments were expressed; the same changes were made; the same results ensued. Each society reduced its sexual opportunity to a minimum and displaying great social energy, flourished greatly. Then it extended its sexual opportunity; its energy decreased, and faded away. The one outstanding feature of the whole story is its unrelieved monotony.

Without exception, once restrictions on sexuality are lifted, especially female sexuality, a society destroys itself from within, and is later conquered from without. When not focusing mental and physical energy on building strong families, members of a culture lose the impetus for upkeep and innovation [emphasis added – The Angophilic Anglican].”

“Author Daniel Janosik puts Unwin’s findings this way:

“If the British anthropologist J. D. Unwin is correct in his assessment of society, this present generation in the Western world may be the last one. He found that when strict heterosexual monogamy was practiced, the society attained its greatest cultural energy, especially in the arts, sciences and technology. But as people rebelled against the prohibitions placed upon them and demanded more sexual opportunities, there was a consequent loss of their creative energy, which resulted in the decline and eventual destruction of the civilization. Remarkably, he did not find any exception to this trend.”

“The fact the world’s three major religions, which date back to the Bronze Age, have been structured around the ideals of monogamy and sexual restraint for thousands of years should tell us something about tampering with the set and frame of civilization, then calling the resulting degeneracy ‘progress.’

“Unwin concluded that the fabric that holds a society together is sexual in nature. When life-long heterosexual monogamous relationship is practiced, the focus is on the nurture of the family and energy is expended to protect, plan for, and build up the individual family unit. This extends to the entire society and produces a strong society focused on preserving the strength of the family.

However, he found that when sexual opportunities opened the door to premarital, post-marital, and homosexual relationships, the social energy always dissipated as the individual focused more on self-gratification rather than societal good.”

To which The Anglophilic Anglican can only quote that great philosopher of the earlier and more innocent 1960s, Gomer Pyle:

Gomer Pyle – Surprise, surprise, surprise!


[Disclaimer: No offense to Mr. McCormack intended, but I would not have titled the linked blog-post “How Women destroy civilization,” if I had been the one writing it.

It is not women per se who destroy civilization: it is masculinized women and feminized men; it is decoupling sexual relations from the gift and blessing, but also unquestionably the responsibility, of procreation and parenthood, and especially the vocation of motherhood; it is, as the above quotes make clear, privileging personal gratification over the good of families and societies.

Women who understand their primary and proper role being to act in support of their husbands, families, and homes are no threat to civilization, but indeed, one of its most essential pillars! Feminism, not femininity, is the problem.

I despise “hook-up” culture.

My thought for today, the last day of March in this year of grace 2020:

I despise hook-up culture. I mean, seriously? Show a little respect, for yourself and others. Court. Date. Fall in love. Marry. Have kids, if God so blesses you. Pass your genes, and your traditions, down to the next generation. Grow old together. Live in the present in light of both the past (ancestors) and the future (descendants).

That’s where it’s at.

You’re welcome. No extra charge!


Nota Bene:  The second pic, above, is from a website called “Total Sorority Move,” and an article (?) entitled “How to be the best hookup buddy ever,” which includes “tips” like “Find a guy that you wouldn’t imagine yourself with,” and “if you do not care deeply about the guy (or at least care about him a little!) it will make it easier to not fall for him and slip and fall into some feelings.”

To be fair, it also includes the notation that “If you are looking for true love, you are not going to find it with the next guy you hookup with. You need to date if you’re looking for love.” But that begs the question, why are you so totally lacking in self-control that you want to have sex with someone you don’t love, and never have any intention of being in a relationship with?

That is precisely the problem with hookup culture: it reduces sexual intimacy from being both an expression of deep love and commitment between two responsible individuals, and a means of expressing their genetic and cultural heritage into the future, to being just another casual recreational activity. That demeans both sex itself, and the people involved with it.

I mean, look at the pictures above. Which demonstrates more self-respect, respect for the other person involved, and indeed, more respect for culture and society as a whole? In which scene would you rather see your sons or daughters (whether actual or prospective)? And in all honesty, in which scene would you rather see yourself?

If you chose the second, to any of those questions, you may have some soul-searching to do…

 

“Imagine a world that is clean…” – on traditional courtship and dating, by Professor Anthony Esolen

Image may contain: 2 people, people standing and outdoor
The Sailing Signal Gun, 1880-1881 – by Arthur Hughes

Source: Is Traditional Courtship Really “Unrealistic” Today? | Crisis Magazine

From the inimitable Tony Esolen:

“Imagine a world that is clean, insofar as a world of fallen human beings is ever going to be so. Imagine then that a boy’s heart would beat a hundred times a minute just at the thought that he might hold the hand of the beautiful girl whom he admires so much – because she is kind and good and merry.

“Imagine that they have walked aside from a feast at their parish church, to watch the herons wading in the river to catch their fish, and the sun is deepening to orange in the west, and the sounds of children playing come to their ears from far away. Imagine that she too can hardly think of anything else but his presence, and that she is hoping that he will take her hand, though she is a little shy of it.

“Imagine that that they sit on a bench, and when they run out of things to say, he places his hand upon hers. And they sit like that for a long while…

“That boy and girl I have described will remember that moment for the rest of their lives, whether or not they end up marrying one another. It will be a memory filled with the sweetness and the innocence and the promise of youth.

“It will be a moment without guilt, or shame, or, God forbid, the remembered fear that they might have made a child, one that they were not in the slightest bit ready to care for, and one whose life would be at grave danger as soon as he were conceived. They could stand before God and man without anything for which to apologize.”

Just gonna leave this here…

P.S. Read the whole essay. It’s worth it.

Why “play hard to get” is terrible advice for women | Aleteia

Dating Couple

Source: Why “play hard to get” is terrible advice for women | Aleteia

I am, perhaps, the very last person who should be offering relationship advice, as my success in the world of romantic love and relationships has been slim to nonexistent, at least in recent decades.

[Which is a shame, because I think I would make a good husband and father, and would love to have the chance to try! But I digress…]

Nonetheless, this essay – written by a woman, Chloe Langr – strongly resonated with me. I think too many people, of both sexes, treat relationships as a game, a power struggle, or both. Perhaps it’s no wonder that so many fail…?

“When someone plays hard get to get, they’re focused on getting the upper hand and controlling the relationship. ‘When you’re determined to play it cool to impress someone, you lose sight of what you actually want. How are you supposed to develop a genuine connection when you are focused on gaining the upper hand?’ Goldin said. ‘Relationships are built on shared attraction and commitment, which makes pretending not to be interested at odds with what you really want.’ …

“Playing the hard-to-get game is harmful when you actually want to invest in a relationship with someone. The next time you find yourself doing it, take a minute to think about whether you’re truly enjoying the experience. If you’re interested in someone, be direct. You won’t come across as needy, but instead you’ll be showing vulnerability and confidence — and that is much more attractive then waiting an hour before responding to a text.”

Amen.

And by the way, as a man (and one who can be somewhat shy, especially around a woman to whom I’m attracted), I can state categorically to any women who may be reading this that playing hard won’t make me want you more.

It will – depending on the specifics of the situation – either make me think, “ah, she’s gaming me” (in which case it will kill my interest, since that’s not the kind of woman I’m looking for) or it will make me think, “well, darn it, I guess she’s not interested after all… better look elsewhere.”

Just sayin’….

To restate from the linked essay and the excerpts above, “If you’re interested in someone, be direct. You won’t come across as needy, but instead you’ll be showing vulnerability and confidence.” Absolutely.

 

On Valentine’s Day, embrace tradition!

Image may contain: 2 people, text

We live in a time in which monogamy and true love – like tradition itself – are counter-cultural. Reject “hook-up” culture. Embrace monogamy. Understand the difference between love and lust. Be counter-cultural: embrace tradition.

Happy Valentine’s Day.