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

[SweetSue92]

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

​

I understand your point and agree on the fundamentals. But sadly, sinful sexuality has always been around, even in eras we thought it wasn't.

In the Victorian age, in California, they kept largely Asian women IN CAGES. As sex slaves. Men would pay for whatever amount of time with them, and then return them to the cage. They fed the women opium constantly to keep them "sane". Most of them died within like 18 months.

Whenever I read conservatives waxing sentimental about "the good old days" I remember the above.

Sex Slavery in San Francisco’s Chinatown - Rabbit Hole

A journey through San Fran’s sordid past.

rabbitholemag.com

 

[Mashmont]

I understand your point and agree on the fundamentals. But sadly, sinful sexuality has always been around, even in eras we thought it wasn't.

In the Victorian age, in California, they kept largely Asian women IN CAGES. As sex slaves. Men would pay for whatever amount of time with them, and then return them to the cage. They fed the women opium constantly to keep them "sane". Most of them died within like 18 months.

Whenever I read conservatives waxing sentimental about "the good old days" I remember the above.

Sex Slavery in San Francisco’s Chinatown - Rabbit Hole

A journey through San Fran’s sordid past.

rabbitholemag.com

Agree. And I covered that in my OP.

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.

 

[Blaster]

It's the children that suffer because of infidelity.

 

[Mashmont]

View attachment 1129501

People don't marry as young as they used to, if at all. And abortion and birth control are immoral,

 

[Mashmont]

It's the children that suffer because of infidelity.

Yes. All parties are damaged by infidelity.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Yes. All parties are damaged by infidelity.

So what is your solution to the problem?

 

[Mashmont]

So what is your solution to the problem?

1) Mandatory Christian moral education from an early age.
2) Banning of all leftwing stories pushing sexual immorality and bashing Christianity.
3) Government to stop playing the daddy role, constantly giving away goodies that parents should be providing.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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

​

The rising relationship failures are a staggering neon sign that something is very wrong. (Divorces PLUS failed "live-in" relationships, when they are counted together, the projected failure rate is near 70%)
But it has nothing to do with pre-marital sex. At all.
And has everything to do with kids not having selfishness taught out of them, so they simply grow up to be selfish adults - as well extremely poor social skills due to kids constantly-constantly on social media instead of being around real people.

Pre-marital sex is a positive thing.

 

[Blaster]

Yes. All parties are damaged by infidelity.

It seems whenever I go to a nightspot there is always some married woman trying to hustle me.

 

[Meriweather]

So what is your solution to the problem?

1) Mandatory Christian moral education from an early age.
2) Banning of all leftwing stories pushing sexual immorality and bashing Christianity.
3) Government to stop playing the daddy role, constantly giving away goodies that parents should be providing.

To this I highly recommend teaching The Theology of the Body for Teens. Pope John Paul II spent time writing and speaking on the theology of the body which is a wonderful way to tune out what society is pitching to us via Hollywood and social media and refocus on who we are and redirecting us to the purpose each one of us has in this life. There is also the original Theology of the Body, that adults will appreciate.

 

[Dragonlady]

I can't agree with that. Immorality harms all of society.

Your definition of immorality centres on sexual behavior. My definition of immorality centres on lying cheating and treating other people disrespectfully.

It had mostly to do with morals. When I was a lad in Catholic school, there were a handful of divorced parents out of the 100 or so families. We always felt there was something wrong with them. These parents usually weren’t Catholic themselves; we didn’t see them in church as often. They just seemed like outsiders who dropped off their kids. The kids themselves were often unruly.

Leftwing government unfortunately inserted itself as the dad, and made the real fathers expendable, maybe it easier to give up on relationships and not work things out. This goes along my claim that prosperity leads to selfishness and laziness and a loss of shared goals. Merriwether echoed this sentiment.

Again, ALL of your definition or morality is centered on SEX. Society isn't being harmed by changes in sexual morality. The decline in morality is in PUBLIC morality.

You clearly voted for Donald Trump - a man who cheats in business, lies every time he opens his mouth, and sexually assaults women he finds attractive and ignores the law. Such a man would never even be nominated in 1950, but you voter for him, more than once.

And then come here and talk about moral decline in America because people are getting divorced.

 

[hadit]

But you voted fer a serial adulterer, Donnie Trump.

End-stage TDS rears its ugly head, again.

 

[Votto]

So what is your solution to the problem?

As with all problems, who do you consult?

Do you consult God or the clown show known as the Swamp?

Probably the hardest hit are single parent homes, especially in the Black community. With about 70% of Black homes being a single parent home, how are the children ever going to escape a life of crime and poverty?

Sad.

Or you can look at someone like Hugh Heffner. At the end of his life, he married twin sisters who were young and beautiful. Maybe he got off on watching them commit incest on each other. Dunno.

But did he have anyone around him he really loved and who really loved him?

My guess is no. He just died around strangers who were just after his money.

 

[Zincwarrior]

The sexual values of the 40's did work and do work. Fewer people broke the rules, and fewer people suffered the misery of doing so.

IN Texas and many states there is a legal doctrine called common law marriage, stemming from before Texas was a Republic. People just shacking up could be legally considered married. So, yea, whatever, people were being animals in the 1800s.

 

[Votto]

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

​

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.

 

[Dragonlady]

It's the children that suffer because of infidelity.

It's is the partner of the adulterer who is MOST harmed. There are good and valid reasons why the prohibition on adultery is one of the 10 Commandments - right up there with not committing murder, or bearing false witness. Nothing is more destructive to social structure.

It's not just the children. If the husband is unfaithful, there is the money spent on his affairs, which the whole family loses. The wife loses her husband's help in their partnership and his time and attentions. She has less household money, and less time. Wives know something is wrong and it affects the whole family, their well being, and their connections.

An affair is the ultimate act of selfishness. The cheater is saying "My good time is more important than this family, or the promises I've made to all of you". If the infidelity is "meaningless" or one night stands, it makes you wonder what is wrong with someone that their momentary pleasure is worth the risk and the damage they're doing.

Personally, I would never date a married man. Right up front you know the guy is a lying cheater. Hardly the sort of person I would want to date or become involved with.

I know a woman who got involved with a married man, who left his wife and married her. Three years later she caught him cheating on HER. When you marry a man who screws around on his wife, what you have is a husband who screws around on his wife. Or the other old line "A man who marries his mistress, creates a vacancy in that position".

 

[Zincwarrior]

Next you’ll bring up the Clintons as a model relationship.
And Cortez is in a shack up. That’s not stable. Why won’t she or the eunuch commit?

What about yourself? You talk a big game, but how do YOU act?

 

[Votto]

I can't agree with that. Immorality harms all of society.

The Left will always blame all their ills on capitalism and the injustice within society that denies them material things.

They are blind as bats.

 

[Votto]

It's is the partner of the adulterer who is MOST harmed. There are good and valid reasons why the prohibition on adultery is one of the 10 Commandments - right up there with not committing murder, or bearing false witness. Nothing is more destructive to social structure.

It's not just the children. If the husband is unfaithful, there is the money spent on his affairs, which the whole family loses. The wife loses her husband's help in their partnership and his time and attentions. She has less household money, and less time. Wives know something is wrong and it affects the whole family, their well being, and their connections.

An affair is the ultimate act of selfishness. The cheater is saying "My good time is more important than this family, or the promises I've made to all of you". If the infidelity is "meaningless" or one night stands, it makes you wonder what is wrong with someone that their momentary pleasure is worth the risk and the damage they're doing.

Personally, I would never date a married man. Right up front you know the guy is a lying cheater. Hardly the sort of person I would want to date or become involved with.

I know a woman who got involved with a married man, who left his wife and married her. Three years later she caught him cheating on HER. When you marry a man who screws around on his wife, what you have is a husband who screws around on his wife. Or the other old line "A man who marries his mistress, creates a vacancy in that position".

I'm sorry, did you then vote for Trump because you agree with his past sex life choices?

Why then do you mock people who voted for him even though they may disagree with is past sex life choices?

 

[Zincwarrior]

The reason monogamy may have worked better then is that (in the main) it took two people to keep the home environment running. Modern conveniences (even vacuums) were not yet a given. Most were still drying clothes on clotheslines. Microwaves were yet to appear, two-car families were not the norm, not to mention dishwashers, frozen foods, take-out, and the like. Many were still sewing their own clothes, canning their own fruits and vegetables. Then there was the ironing--no permanent press. Most of this fell on women while men brought in the income to pay the bills. The reality was, "We're in this together" which isn't a bad thing especially when love is present, and where each spouse actually wants and works toward good of the other.

Today, one person can easily take care of all of the above, and having a spouse can easily be seen not as two yoked together for the benefit of both, but can seem a luxury that eventually is perceived more as a burden and a block of personal freedom. The focus turns to, "I want the good for me." It has been shown the children of those in monogamous relationships are happier than children of those who do not maintain monogamous relationships. (Two parents who also want and work for their children's good.)

It seems--when it is affordable--selfishness takes rise over love and laziness triumphs over the work it takes to work on and maintain a relationship where two truly want the good of the other and the family as a whole. Could it be that sexual freedom is the result of laziness because one can now (due to modern conveniences) do all the work that once required two?

A reminder, everyone was also dead by 45 too.