Zone1 We need to Return to 1940's Values on Sex Outside Marriage. Desperately.

[rightwinger]

You're atheist.

Trump is a Bible loving Christian
God will get him

 

[hadit]

So you agree that the OP is stupid then?

No, it is valid to make a generic statement about the state of morality in society today without thinking that precludes you from voting for a specific candidate because somebody else doesn't like that particular person. IOW, while I would like our politicians to be paragons of virtue, they have not been for a very long time and I do not expect them to suddenly start begin so.

 

[Zincwarrior]

No, it is valid to make a generic statement about the state of morality in society today without thinking that precludes you from voting for a specific candidate because somebody else doesn't like that particular person. IOW, while I would like our politicians to be paragons of virtue, they have not been for a very long time and I do not expect them to suddenly start begin so.

But if you're voting for the aberrant behavior can't support a return to different behavior.

 

[rightwinger]

No, it is valid to make a generic statement about the state of morality in society today without thinking that precludes you from voting for a specific candidate because somebody else doesn't like that particular person. IOW, while I would like our politicians to be paragons of virtue, they have not been for a very long time and I do not expect them to suddenly start begin so.

If you excuse a President for a lack of moral standards, how can you condemn anyone else for their lack of standards ?

 

[hadit]

If you excuse a President for a lack of moral standards, how can you condemn anyone else for their lack of standards ?

What do you mean by "condemn"? Can I not voice opposition to the practice of adultery while not even asking if a guy I've hired to fix my roof ever had sex with a woman other than his wife? Can I not voice opposition to the practice of abortion without even asking if the woman I've hired to clean my house has ever had one? It sounds to me like you are advocating that one has to read the hearts of everyone they come into contact with to ensure they are of pure moral fiber before being allowed to do be in the presence of one.

There is only One that can do that, and I'm not Him.

If you like, here. I condemn all politicians who cheat on their wives. Now, let's have all the Christians in America agree that they will only vote for the candidates of the highest moral character who follow all of God's commands to the best of their ability. You won't shriek, "THEOCRACY", will you?

Now, do you condemn politicians for lack of moral character, or only Orange Man?

 

[Meriweather]

If you excuse a President for a lack of moral standards, how can you condemn anyone else for their lack of standards ?

When society lacks moral standards (everyone feels each person should do whatever s/he feels is right for them), then society is left to elect what society has produced.

 

[initforme]

Contraception is not immoral. It simply prevents conception, which is jnecessary when young couples dont want kids. Its a gift from god.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

I just read an article this morning that singer Katy Perry and actor Orlando Bloom just ended their nine-year "engagement". A casualty of this failed shack up is their four-year-old daughter. The story was reported without the bat of an eye. Just more humdrum news. More of the same.

Contrast this to 1949 when actress Ingrid Bergman conceived a child out of wedlock and was banned from Hollywood. Huge scandal. Huge news event.

America and the world had those high moral standards through the 1940s into the first half of the 1950's. People think the 60s ushered in sexual immorality, but it really started in the late 50s. In 1959, Some Like it Hot won the Academy Award. Why? Not because it was a great movie, but because it had gay sexual inneundo at the end.



This decline in sexual morality manifests itself in encouragement of: sex outside marriage, contraception, abortion, pornography, homosexuality, masturbation, and abortion.

The sexual revolution, also known as the sexual liberation, was a social movement that challenged traditional codes of behavior related to sexuality and interpersonal relationships throughout the Western world from the late 1950s to the early 1970s. Sexual liberation included increased acceptance of sexual intercourse outside of traditional heterosexual, monogamous relationships, primarily marriage. The legalization of the pill as well as other forms of contraception, public nudity, pornography, premarital sex, homosexuality, masturbation, alternative forms of sexuality, and abortion all followed

Sexual revolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Incidentally, by 1957, Bergmann had been forgiven and welcomed back to Hollywood. Again, changing mores. Change for the worse.

Changes in the divorce rate: You can see by the chart, divorces were minimal until 1960, then skyrocketed in the 70s, then reduced somewhat. But the drop was related not to a renewed view of sanctity of marriage; but rather to an increase in cohabitations, which have a higher fail rate than marriages. In short, the total percentage of relatiionships combined licit and illicit has been increasingly failing since 1960.

Some will say "People have always engaged in illicit sex throughout all periods". True. But we are talking about societal sanction. That's the all-important difference. Because once society approves and encourages a behavior, that behavior increases markedly.

You may wonder why sexual moral standards were higher in the 1940s. I say it's because people's character was forged by difficult times: The Great Depression followed by World War II. In bad times, people turn to God. In good times, people become more lax. As America becomes more prosperous, we get morally lax.

I find it interesting the Catholic Church also had it's highest number of priests and sisters in the 1940s and 50s. Those numbers fell right along with the sexual revolution, showing the overall deterioration of society. People are less willing to give up earthly comforts for the sake of others. It's an overall weakening forged by permissiveness. It's a selfish self-comfort. Same with illicit sex. It all goes together.

Conclusion: Immoral sex may seem so simple, innocent, and victimless. In reality, it is among the most dangerous and destructive of all sins because of its pervasiveness. It destroys relationships, objectifies women, derails commitment, creates unwanted children, and numbs people's ability to have meaningful relationships. The promotion illicit sex is done on purpose. Overall, it is Marxists trying to weaken powerful Christian nations, especially the United States, to make us ripe for takeover. This is why illicit sex is sanctioned and encouraged by the leftist media. That trend started in earnest in the mid-1950s.

What will bring us back? If history is a guide, it may take catastrophe to make people refocus on God. Tough times bring out character in people to live in service to others. Or we can be like the people of Ninevah who heeded the warnings of destruction and repented on their own, thus saving themselves.

View attachment 1129383
Divorce rate through the decades



The assertion that cohabiting relationships fail more often than marriages is supported by various studies and reports. Research indicates that couples who live together before marriage are more likely to experience divorce compared to those who do not cohabit before tying the knot.
Factors Contributing to This Trend:

• Lack of Commitment: Cohabiting couples might not have the same level of commitment to the relationship as married couples. This lack of commitment can make it easier to dissolve the relationship when difficulties arise.
• Inertia: Couples may find themselves "sliding" into cohabitation out of convenience rather than consciously deciding to commit to the relationship. This inertia can lead to less marital satisfaction and increase the likelihood of divorce.
• Financial and Practical Considerations: Moving in together for financial reasons or convenience might lead to a less stable foundation for a future marriage compared to cohabiting to spend more time together.
• Pre-engagement Cohabitation: Studies show that couples who cohabit before getting engaged are more likely to divorce compared to those who cohabit only after being engaged or married.
• Accumulating Cohabiting Partners: Having a history of multiple cohabiting partners can increase the risk of divorce later, even if the couple eventually marries.

Are Sexual Sins the Worst Ones?

Catholic Therapist Allison Ricciardi discusses sexual sins and whether they are the worst sins...and why we might think so; Mary Magdalene.

spiritualdirection.com

​

Why not just go back to the beginning of the 1900's era of the upper-class New Englanders. The girl had to have a chaperone, typically the mother with her if they went out on a date?!
Hey, how about go back to the 1700's and 1800's when they did bundling? The practice of sleeping with another person while fully clothed. Oh wait, that actually led to an increase of births.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Why not just go back to the beginning of the 1900's era of the upper-class New Englanders. The girl had to have a chaperone, typically the mother with her if they went out on a date?!

I believe there was a scene in the Godfather like that.

Hey, how about go back to the 1700's and 1800's when they did bundling? The practice of sleeping with another person while fully clothed. Oh wait, that actually led to an increase of births.

Nature finds a way!

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

I believe there was a scene in the Godfather like that.


Nature finds a way!

Even though I saw all three Godfather movies, I don't recall such a scene. I do recall a scene from the Mel Gibson movie, Patriot, in which the suitor was sewn into cloth so he could sleep alongside the maiden.

 

[rightwinger]

Even though I saw all three Godfather movies, I don't recall such a scene. I do recall a scene from the Mel Gibson movie, Patriot, in which the suitor was sewn into cloth so he could sleep alongside the maiden.

Godfather Pt 2
The whole town chaperoned Michael and Appolina

 

[cnm]

Since I have no problem with people who engage in sex outside marriage, contraception, abortion, pornography, homosexuality, masturbation, and abortion, I vote no.

The Evangenitals would like a word with you...

 

[Dragonlady]

You should look at the STD rates of gay males. Even though they make up less than 10% of society, they account for well over half of all spread of STD's, including AIDS.

Women naturally put a cold blanket on the male sex drive in various ways because the male sex drive is so much stronger. Without it though, this is what you wind up with.

So much bullshit in this post it needs commentary.

Gay men aren’t responsible for half the STD’s or even close to that number.

And no the sex drive in men isn’t stronger than in women.

No wonder you vote for Trump. You’re an ignorant, uneducated man.

 

[forkintheroad7]

Since I have no problem with people who engage in sex outside marriage, contraception, abortion, pornography, homosexuality, masturbation, and abortion, I vote no.

OP is likely saying

I rest my case

and looking like this

 

[forkintheroad7]

Take AOC, who is living with that eunuch. That wouldn't have been tolerated in the 40s. Today, it's not reported as anything unusual or immoral. That's how far society has fallen.

eunuch?

That's someone who doesn't have sex.

 

[Dragonlady]

Take AOC, who is living with that eunuch. That wouldn't have been tolerated in the 40s. Today, it's not reported as anything unusual or immoral. That's how far society has fallen.

In my view, that's how far society has COME, not fallen.

I don't know where or when you grew up, but I when I grew up in the 1940's and 1950's, that was MORE than tolerated. Think Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy. Or all of the gay actors and actresses in the 1930's and 1940's. All manner of behaviours were tolerated.

Roberto Rossellini's career didn't suffer because he had an affair with Ingrid Bergman. Only Ingrid was stigmatized and only by the American press. The rest of the world, didn't care. Bergman stopped working in Hollywood, but remained popular throughout Europe, and Canada.

 

[Mashmont]

In my view, that's how far society has COME, not fallen.

I don't know where or when you grew up, but I when I grew up in the 1940's and 1950's, that was MORE than tolerated. Think Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy. Or all of the gay actors and actresses in the 1930's and 1940's. All manner of behaviours were tolerated.

Roberto Rossellini's career didn't suffer because he had an affair with Ingrid Bergman. Only Ingrid was stigmatized and only by the American press. The rest of the world, didn't care. Bergman stopped working in Hollywood, but remained popular throughout Europe, and Canada.

Nonsense. Gay studf wasn’t tolerated then. Tab Hunter and Rock Hudson’s careers would have been ruined had they been found out. Tracey and Hepburn were a disgrace. Bergman was a pariah

An 80-year-old lady should have things figured out by now.

 

[Mashmont]

eunuch?

That's someone who doesn't have sex.

Riley seems a bit soft

 

[Dragonlady]

Nonsense. Gay studf wasn’t tolerated then. Tab Hunter and Rock Hudson’s careers would have been ruined had they been found out. Tracey and Hepburn were a disgrace. Bergman was a pariah

An 80-year-old lady should have things figured out by now.

Berman was only a “pariah” in the USA. The rest of the world didn’t care and she was in all of Rossellini’s European films, remaining a huge star in Europe.

The American press CHOSE to publicize Bergman’s affair, and not out the gay actors, or the other sexual misconduct of movie stars.

Liz Taylor had an affair with Eddie Fisher and Taylor’s career prospered. So why was Bergman castigated?

Your notions of what society “tolerated” at that time, is only applicable to the USA.

 

[hadit]

In my view, that's how far society has COME, not fallen.

I don't know where or when you grew up, but I when I grew up in the 1940's and 1950's, that was MORE than tolerated. Think Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy. Or all of the gay actors and actresses in the 1930's and 1940's. All manner of behaviours were tolerated.

Roberto Rossellini's career didn't suffer because he had an affair with Ingrid Bergman. Only Ingrid was stigmatized and only by the American press. The rest of the world, didn't care. Bergman stopped working in Hollywood, but remained popular throughout Europe, and Canada.

The rich and famous have always been able to do what the rest cannot.