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

[Votto]

I think societal norms is what is begin questioned in this thread.

For example, in Sparta all men took male lovers, and usually boys under aged.

This was just expected and promoted within their society.

It shows how societal norms influence sexual behavior.

We really are just lemmings.

And no, they didn't all have the "gay gene"

 

[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

​

Hollywood is a prime example of how money and wealth can destroy relationships.

One of the driving forces behind keeping a relationship together, is mutual benefit. Life is hard and it helps to have someone walking beside you to help as you help them. This means building, not only an emotional and spiritual relationship with another person, but an economic one as well. It then behooves both to work through their problems if at all possible to help ensure the welfare of both parties.

But when you have all the money in the world, do you really fear having to shell out millions to a divorce lawyer and then find another partner, so you are not lonely? Probably not.

Those in Hollywood become too damned narcissistic to really care about anyone more than themselves, because it is all about their career. At some point, which will eventually come, the other party begins to become a drag of sorts. Do they want to make it work anyway? The easy thing is just to discard them and find another, preferably somebody richer or better looking. They simply love themselves more than who they are married too.

 

[Meriweather]

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


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.

Talking specifically the immoral aspects of sexual behavior does not center immorality on sexual behavior. This thread centers on sexual morality and the effects of sexual immorality in America. The reason this is a concern is because those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. People of faith note the final chapters of Genesis where stories are told of tribes and nations that faltered and fell when their societies decided to forego sexual discipline. Leading up to this are stories of the people renaming what had been forbidden in society regarding sex was now, in fact, a "good".

It should give us pause to remember that the downfall of nations has ever begun with society renaming the forbidden as a good.

As far as your comments on Donald Trump: He exaggerates...kind of like your comment that he "lies every time he opens his mouth." First, he also opens his mouth to eat; second, he also opens his mouth when he tells the truth or brushes his teeth. What you assert as "sexual assault" is more accurately described as misconduct and inappropriate and unwanted passes. Nor does he "ignore" the law when he finds a loophole. This is not to say any of the above is acceptable behavior; most would agree it is not good. Speaking of doing things that are not good, take a look at King David, and most likely every leader of fame who ever lived. Their lives are filled with tales where their actions were not good. But, when all has been said and done, they are remembered for the good they did--or the good God did through them, as imperfect as they are/were.

 

[Twisted Gypsy Child]

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.

Fake News


U.S. Census Bureau statistics on premarital pregnancy and vital statistics on single motherhood between 1940 and 1960 point to the unexpected conclusion that there was much more sexual activity during those decades than Americans were willing to admit, said Alan Petigny, a UF history professor whose research was published in the fall issue of the Journal of Social History.

The 1940s and 50s, often characterized by traditional social values, actually witnessed a gradual shift in sexual attitudes and behaviors, sometimes referred to as a "silent" or "subterranean" revolution. While public discourse remained largely conservative, there was a notable increase in premarital sexual activity, particularly after World War II. This period laid the groundwork for the more overt sexual revolution of the 1960s.

Extracts - "Silent " Sexual Revolution Began In The 1940's and '50s

 

[Twisted Gypsy Child]

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

I as well. As long as no children are involved or harmed I say "none of my business"

 

[Meriweather]

A reminder, everyone was also dead by 45 too.

Well, not everyone, as my family genealogy shows. However, point taken.

 

[DGS49]

A few points worth noting, at least in my opinion:

The article does not mention the "elephant in the room," which is artificial birth control. Prior to the invention and proliferation of The Pill (approximately 1970), virtually every act of illicit sexual congress COULD result in a pregnancy, and abortions were not available virtually from street vendors as they have been for the past 50 years or so. This ALONE resulted in suppression of adults' sexual desires. The flip side of that coin - like it or not - is that today there is no such thing as an unplanned pregnancy...only negligent pregnancies. We all know that pregnancy can be avoided and how to avoid it.

Indeed, it is quite possible to have an illicit sexual relationship for a period of YEARS, while keeping it completely under wraps - play on words intended. And I dare say even that is better than a life of serial monogamy.

Second, marriage is the most solemn PROMISE that occurs in our public lives. The marriage promise - to be sexually faithful until you are separated by death - is usually made with months of preparations, before one's best and closest friends and relatives, and in front of a representative of the State (which role is often filled by clergy). There can be no more public or solemn promise.

And yet among Millennials (and younger), its validity is no greater than signing up with a cell-phone carrier. Even taking the sexual aspect out of it, breaking that promise is stratospherically immoral. People get divorced because they have a ******* argument; the thought that the issue might be worked out - as was done for the past hundred generations - is not even seriously considered.

The AIDS pandemic, from what I'm told, introduced the principle of monogamy to many gay couples where it had never really been a Thing in the past. The occasional quickie with a stranger was common and accepted. Ironically, AIDS brought about the promotion of "gay marriage," because if you are going to be (arguably) monogamous, why not?

Without some similar intervening factor among the heterosexual crowd (the Death Penalty for adultery?), a reversion to lifetime monogamy is, let's just call it, unlikely.

Fifty-two years and counting.

 

[initforme]

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

 

[initforme]

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

Birth control is immoral? Contraception is immoral? So a married couple using birth control to avoid pregnancy is immoral?

 

[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.

I'd like to see a link on that specious claim of "half of all spread of STD's". Gay men do have higher rates of STD's, but nowhere near half of all STD's.

Also stop sharing your thoughts on women. You have no idea what you're talking about. Women's sex drive is JUST as strong as men's, moron. I was immediately reminded that in sex education classes when I was high school, the girls were told that if things got "out of hand", it was the fault of the girl, because boys are more easily turned on than the girls, and really can't help themselves, so it was up to us to keep things from going "too far".

This statement made no logical sense. If sexual stimulation happened with increased blood flow to the sexual organs, it made sense that girls got excited quicker because the blood had a shorter distance to travel to get to our sex organs than the boys. Their penis is further from heart than the vagina.

End-stage TDS rears its ugly head, again.

MAGA idiocy at its finest. There is no greater indication of the moral decline of the USA than their election of a 3 times married, 6 times bankrupt, convicted felon, sexual abuser, incompetent liar.

Bleating "TDS" every time we point out these FACTS is so distressing to you fools, you have to deflect your Cultish devotion to this criminal, shows the extent of YOUR derangement.

 

[hadit]

MAGA idiocy at its finest. There is no greater indication of the moral decline of the USA than their election of a 3 times married, 6 times bankrupt, convicted felon, sexual abuser, incompetent liar.

Bleating "TDS" every time we point out these FACTS is so distressing to you fools, you have to deflect your Cultish devotion to this criminal, shows the extent of YOUR derangement.

One of the symptoms of end-stage TDS is the compulsion to insert "Look over here, something about TRUMP!" into every thread, no matter how far removed he is from the discussion.

Just for the record, I did not inject TRUMP! into the discussion. If you want to talk about him, join all the leftwingers and democrats (but I repeat myself) who create multiple threads about him every day, displaying their rabid obsession for all to see.

 

[Meriweather]

Birth control is immoral? Contraception is immoral? So a married couple using birth control to avoid pregnancy is immoral?

Is it selfish? Is it a turning away and ignoring sex' greatest purpose?

 

[hadit]

Is it selfish? Is it a turning away and ignoring sex' greatest purpose?

No, it is not selfish. It is allowing one of sex's greatest purposes, which is to strengthen the bond of intimacy between one man and one woman, to proceed regardless of pregnancy or timing considerations. Would you criticize a married couple for timing their encounters to reduce the chances of pregnancy occurring, for using the pull-out method or other sexual practices that do not result in semen being introduced to the vagina?

This is in no way an endorsement of abortion, which kills a child already in existence. That's a different ball of wax altogether.

 

[Mr Natural]

Everything was better back in the day.

In 80 years they’ll be calling these the “Good Old Days “.

 

[Dragonlady]

Birth control is immoral? Contraception is immoral? So a married couple using birth control to avoid pregnancy is immoral?

Yes, according to Catholics, taking birth control is thwarting "God's will" and his commandment to "Go forth and multiple".

I remember back in the 1970's, a married Catholic woman was interviewed about why she had multiple abortions. Why not just go on the Pill and avoid the pregnancy? Her response was that taking a birth control was considered a "mortal sin", as is having an abortion. If she took the Pill, she was committing 21 mortal sins every month. If she had an occasional abortion, that was only one mortal sin at a time.

Fundamentalist protestant sects believe that birth control encourages "immoral behaviour", as if sex outside of marriage never happened. I was old enough to have attended high school BEFORE the birth control Pill was widely available. Teenage pregnancy rates were HIGHER when I was in high school than they are today.

If a girl became pregnant, she was immediately expelled from high school, as was the boy who "got her in trouble". This did not deter teen sex. They would marry - two teenagers without a high school education, and a baby on the way. The marriages seldom lasted, and then you had a single mother without a high school education, moving back in with her parents or struggling to raise her child, or possibly children, on minimum wage jobs.

Alternatively, the girl would leave town, and return 6 months later, a little heavier, and a little sadder. It was not uncommon for parents of these girls to adopt a new baby around the time she came home. There were "homes for unwed mothers" and "orphanages" where the offspring of such women who were placed for adoption lived until they were "picked".

The social requirement that if you got a girl pregnant, you married her, was so strong that it was widely believed that girls "trapped" rich young men into marriage by getting pregnant "on purpose", as if the young man had no obligation or responsibility in the pregnancy at all. Men lack the ability to control themselves, nor does society expect them to, it's always on us. That sentiment has already been expressed in this thread, all of these years later.

Abortions were illegal and dangerous, but available. One of my teenage friends had an abortion her older brother arranged for her. It cost the equivalent of 6 weeks pay at my first full time job. Her parents never knew. The clinic was a real doctor's office, with a real doctor, but can still remember how scared I was on her behalf.

Another woman told me that she was raped and got pregnant when she was 13. Her family took her to Japan where abortion was legal. I know of another girl whose family took her to Sweden. The daughters of the rich were always taken care of.

Every big city hospital had regular occurrences of the victims of botched abortions bleeding out in the emergency room. That stopped literally overnight when Roe v. Wade was decided and abortion was legalized.

These are the "moral" 1950's and 1960's, before Birth Control and "immorality" took over. Nothing like the glossy picture with the rose colored view, you painted.

 

[initforme]

Is it selfish? Is it a turning away and ignoring sex' greatest purpose?

No, i dont see it as selfish at all. You cannot believe a married couple who doesnt want kids is selfish. Makes zero sense.

 

[hadit]

Yes, according to Catholics, taking birth control is thwarting "God's will" and his commandment to "Go forth and multiple".

Since I am not a Catholic, I am curious. Do you castigate married couples who have sexual relations only when pregnancy is less likely? What about enjoyable activities between a married couple that result in great sexual pleasure but not in semen being introduced to the vagina? I've always wondered just how far Catholics take this doctrine.

I've always held that what a married couple does behind their bedroom door by themselves is their business and God's only. Does the Church feel it has the moral imperative to intrude on that sacred ground?

-Edit- Sorry I presumed you to be Catholic.

 

[buttercup]

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 would you expect people who are living according to the ways of this world to be anything other than what they are?

The only thing that truly and radically changes someone from the inside out is being born again. So if you really want society to change...then it would make more sense to focus on reaching people for Jesus... instead of expecting them to live according to biblical principles when they're not even believers in the first place.

 

[Dragonlady]

Is it selfish? Is it a turning away and ignoring sex' greatest purpose?

What about sex between partners who are infertile, or past the age of childbearing? The GREATEST purpose for sex is in bonding the couple. Yes, sex is necessary to procreate, but procreation is possible without bonding.

 

[Meriweather]

No, it is not selfish. It is allowing one of sex's greatest purposes, which is to strengthen the bond of intimacy between one man and one woman, to proceed regardless of pregnancy or timing considerations. Would you criticize a married couple for timing their encounters to reduce the chances of pregnancy occurring, for using the pull-out method or other sexual practices that do not result in semen being introduced to the vagina?

This is in no way an endorsement of abortion, which kills a child already in existence. That's a different ball of wax altogether.

Every act of sex is meant to be an act of love, and enough to encompass new life should that occur. There are natural means to prevent conception. How much do you value sex? Do you value it enough to be open to its full purpose? Do you value your partner that much, and does your partner value you that much?

Do you value eating? Is bulimia a sign of valuing food or is it a sign of preventing food to do the work for which it is designed?