After showing my gf (who hasn't read Brave New World) this >>161097957 thread...

Pro tip your GF is looking to bring chad bull achmed into the bedroom so you better git good at fluffing the bull and if you do not let her she is going to leave, you need to revenge fuck her friends now.

...

When she gets mad he can say but fucking around is fine.

grim

More importantly than personal relationships, is the impact of sexual liberation on society.

Oxford-educated Anthropologist, J.D. Unwin, conducted a study of every major civilization in human history. He found that, without fail, sexual liberation resulted in either:
>Societal collapse
>Severe societal waning (At which point, more chaste foreign powers conquered said civilization, or political and economic strife waxed into a full death march)

Unwin developed a working theory to explain this phenomena. Essentially, monogamy is both a condition and conduit for social energy. Civilization isn't the result of, in modern parlance, alpha males, but rather a contract between betas. When the overwhelming majority of men can find lifelong partners, they start families and channel their focus into their work and interests. The very existence of civilization depends on these men spending their energy working, and innovating, which props up and propels said civilization.

Once monogamy is no longer in place (something that sexual liberation inherently corrodes), then men waste an inordinate amount of time and energy trying to find temporary sexual gratification. Eventually, sex as a whole trickles up, birthrates go down, and men continue wasting time or opt out of society in general. Conversely, women gravitate towards alphas, in modern parlance, and shy away from having stable families. Single motherhood also becomes a problem, Welfare States get created and if the problem is severe enough, men start opting out (ie, Late Rome)

Time and time again, Unwin noted this. There's one exception to Unwin's hypothesis, and it occurred shortly after his death. Ironically, it was the USSR.

Lenin & Trotsky were degenerates that saw the family as being a bourgeois concept. Once they won their revolution, they sought to impose the promiscuous culture of the Party onto everyday Russians. Lenin shredded laws relating to adultery, sodomy and homosexuality, and made divorce as easy as one married party turning in a signed certificate at a local administrative office.

When Stalin came to power, the family unit of the USSR was beginning to rot. He reversed all of Lenin's policy changes, and started pushing an outright Puritanical culture onto the Soviet Union.

Even though this would, on the surface, call Unwin's work into question, it's important to note that it's a legitimately separate case of Sexual Liberation from the ones Unwin wrote of and warned about.

Firstly, Sexual Liberation in the USSR was remarkable, because it came from the top down. It wasn't the result of declining moral standards, or society's excesses cultivating counterproductive behavior. It was purely ideological. Typically sexual liberation seizes the culture first. Laws change once there's no longer a political will to enforce moral laws, and the problems created by sexual liberation need addressing (ie, single mothers). Conversely, in the USSR, it was a legislative liberation, that had just begun to seep into culture when it was reversed.

And even a far less severe anomaly like the USSR, took an absolutist tyrant with an iron will, who wielded political power that nobody can even imagine today, just to keep it at bay.

Beyond the USSR, no serious academic has actually given a refutation of Unwin's work. Instead, the field of sexology has degenerated into a useless mess of ahistorical and inaccurate garbage, which I'll address in my next post.

search your feelings and the knowledge of the female reproductive strategies. They want alpha genes and once they get them they want a beta to raise and maintain the family unit. It is why men after having kids get lower test etc.
She doesn't realize it but she is using you to cast a wider net to fetch genes she wants and is then going to use you to maintain her nest and lifestyle.

Here's some work by Unwin, and data to back up the charts linked in the first post (Note: Hopousia was a posthumous release featuring Unwin's unpublished essays stitched in with a book he never got to finish. Alduous Huxley, the author of BNW, held him in such high esteem, he wrote the introduction)

>Sexual Regulations and Human Behaviour. London: Williams & Norgate ltd., 1933.
>Sex and Culture. London: Oxford University Press, 1934.
>Sexual Regulations and Cultural Behaviour. London: Oxford University Press, 1935.
>Hopousia: Or, The Sexual and Economic Foundations of a New Society, with and introduction by Aldous Huxley. New York: Oskar Piest, 1940.

>Feldman SS, Cauffman E. Your cheatin’ heart: Attitudes, behaviors, and correlates of sexual betrayal in late adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 1999;9:227–252

>Treas J, Giesen D. Sexual infidelity among married and cohabiting Americans. Journal of Marriage & the Family. 2000;62:48–60.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3407304/#!po=11.1386
>"Having more prior sex partners predicted a higher likelihood of future ESI"

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00444.x/abstract
>Teachman study correlating number of sexual/cohabitational partners with divorce, using 1995 National Survey of Family Growth

psycnet.apa.org/journals/senpai/24/6/766/
>"Both structural equation and group comparison analyses demonstrated that sexual restraint was associated with better relationship outcomes, even when controlling for education, the number of sexual partners, religiosity, and relationship length."

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00996.x/abstract
>Sexual restraint in relationship correlated with better relationship quality

Just like men want the most fertile and child bearing capable women. Just nature. That is why you want them young and untouched so you can pair bond the best with them etc.

Because civilisation is build from breeding rights, tell her to read the epic of Gilgamesh and ask her if she would be okay with a alpha man raping her on her wedding night.

So either you get a new one or fuck her friends and she gets jealous due to your chad seed slinging.

Thanks for the posts man, this is good shit that I’ve never heard of before

Probably yes. Women who have no family values will get the rope.

This is why women need to be property of their fathers and then husbands when married or no man has a stake in building civilization.

No need they will get the alpha dick and then die when they can't walk themselves to the water hole.

1 Corinthians 6:9–11
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?
Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

I am an athiest but I have studied enough science to know the reasons why the rules are there and the bible is spot on for the most part.
The only real problem I have is most christians do not study the bible or even learn enough to start translating stuff correctly. It is not the meek who will inherit the earth but those with the sharpest swords but keep them sheathed. as an example. I blame the jews for that though.

I'm looking forward to that day. Being physically and mentally inferior and cashing in on vagina privilege is pure degeneracy and as such needs to be punished. The end of worshipping subhumanism is near.

I love women but most of them do not knowwhy they do the things they do, jews have cut them off from understanding the feminine and have given them "liliths" corrupted femininity.
We have to show them how much happier they would be as property like tradition demands. Womens happiness drops every year in the USA at least. Women like to move up in marriage so it is best for them to start at the bottom. While men work to move up the social ladder until he gets tot he level a father will marry his daughter off to him.

This man is Alfred C. Kinsey. He was one of the most toxic cultural figures of the previous century. He pioneered the field of sexology, laid the intellectual foundations for sexual liberation and normalized a number of other aberrant sexual behaviors.

You might recognize him from "The Kinsey Scale" which asserts that most people are neither fully homo nor heterosexual. Additionally, there's a sexology institute named after him. He's the source for the statistic "1 in 10 people are homosexual." (Fun Fact: His work was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation)

Now, Kinsey went beyond just pioneering the field of sexology. Most data in sexology either used his methodology, or drew directly from his data, up until the mid 1980s. His first work, "Sexuality in the Human Male" came out in 1948.

Now, the biggest case to be made against Kinsey lies in his own data. He was making assertions like:
>Promiscuity is normal
>Promiscuity is natural
>Promiscuity isn't harmful
etc.

Though, the claim that "Promiscuity is normal" was really the phalanx of the sexual liberation. Unfortunately, Kinsey's data was absolutely horrendous. While the numbers, without context, were shocking to the world, and immediately captured the attention of Americans looking for gratuitous details on the nation's sex life, they painted a VERY inaccurate picture. Kinsey oversampled:
>Self-identified homosexuals
>Self-identified sexual abuse victims
>Convicted sex offenders
etc.
All of whom are far more promiscuous than the average person. Additionally, (notably in his later work "Sexuality in the Human Female"), Kinsey redefined marriage to mean "Living with a member of the opposite gender for over a year." This led to cases of literal prostitutes being passed off as housewives in Kinsey's studies.

It's all in Gilgamesh, only the alpha male can civilise his people and he is often the first to abuse his people.

Just with those acknowledgements, Kinsey has zero credibility; however, those aren't even his biggest mistakes. Kinsey relied solely on volunteers for every single study he conducted. A later Stanford study concluded that volunteers for advertised sex studies are ~2-4 times more promiscuous than average.

So the intellectual champion of the sexual revolution, the man who was held up by feminists and Marxists, was a fraud. He painted a picture of America where everyone was fucking anything with a pulse, and it wasn't representative of reality.

Kinsey is also the reason we can safely disregard comparative studies such as "Millennials are having less sex than their Grandparents." Kinsey's data (and most other data until the mid 80s) is skewed and shows sex as being far more frequent than it actually was.

To go off on a tangent about said study regarding Millenial sex habits, it's trash and you should disregard it. Not only is it making a comparative claim against faulty data, it doesn't separate "Single" from "in a relationship" and "married." It treats sex within the confines of marriage exactly the same as a one night stand. Beyond that, it doesn't differentiate between genders.

From what credible studies we've seen, the lads over at /r9k/ (And noted French authore Michel Houellebecq) are right. Women are having more sex than ever, average men are fairly consistent, while men near the top are having more and more sex, and men at the bottom are incels (which, much like poverty, is trickling up).

Some more fun Kinsey facts to wrap up this section:
>Kinsey filmed some of his subjects in the middle of sexual activity for "personal purposes"
>Kinsey's work was bankrolled by the Rockefeller Foundation
>The Kinsey Institute will frequently defend their namesake, while quietly publishing studies that contradict his work
>Kinsey was an open bisexual
>Kinsey was in an open relationship
etc.

Or else they end up old career women/maids who hate men/have no kids and adopt an outside group as their children (immigrants) who then get tricked by jews into pushing womens suffrage and feminism which allows the jews to take over our laws etc.

t. Peterson shill

This is the same BS as claiming you are against gays because you are secretly a faggot.

This is some real good shit - looking deeper into it. Thanks user.

The wielding of political power (especially to murder/torture) releases dopamine hits greater than cocaine into the human brain, this is why people say power corrupts and is so rare for a human to relinquish power.

I admire your optimism but deep down in your heart you know it is true. It must be done in order to cleanse society from degeneracy.
It is the final solution to the roastie question.

Its less about amorality and more to do with health. It is unhealthy to be permiscuous. Both mentally and physically. It is hedonistic. Allowing you sexual desires to overide sound decisiins about your wellbeing. The evidence is pretty clear this is the case.

Tell her if she is against the worst of male instincts of murder, rape, etc.

Now ask her if she is against the worst of female instincts: hypergamy, jumping on from one cock to the next for a better deal.

Both extreme negative extincts of both genders are undesirable... And society has created mechanisms keeping them uncheck... Until recently: women have been liberated.

How am I shilling for peterson? I am merely relating my observations to others.
I also advocate that the only way for humanity to survive is for whites to segregate and focus on space colonization leaving the skraylings to die on this planet alone. Also the bible is just a jewish retelling of older stories from the Sumerians etc.

I mean if we have to purge I got guns, friends with guns and shit so I am always training and preparing lol, no sweat there man, I am just talking about how to structure after we purge mostly.

Tech and culture may have advanced a shit ton but we still run on natures most basic rules/meta rules. I hope you do find happiness user.

Exactly which is why it is on the shoulders of the most dominant to give power and protection to his subjects. A woman can never be the alpha so the woman can never lead society.

Sexual promiscuity leads to inability to love. And the immoral part is lying to your man that you love him when you are just an empty cum bucket.

I was just commenting on why it is chads tend to abuse after, we just need to rotate alpha chad leaders or use the dual king system. So our chads don't rewire their brains in the wrong way.
You guys are all great in here, posting real good shit too.

However I'd much prefer the Achmad invaders do our job for us because killing our own women for the greater good of preserving societydoesen't sit well with me desu.
I certainly couldn't pull the trigger.

>gf asks why sexual promiscuity is innately immoral

Huge warning sign, break up.

I can't help but laugh when betas take women to seriously and try to argue with them. Although it is funny when the man knows how women thinks and deeply mind fucks them.

Trying my best to redpill her ever so subtly, but it doesn't work. fuck me

Yeah, I hate how we are designed to take care of them so hard sometimes. Really just put them in a camp and let them live out their lives posting on tumblr and making arts and crafts or something.

What do you think traditional marriage was?

Women will only take on the ideas (chameleon mode) when she is trying to get you, once she has you she no longer cares about your ideas she will now try to change you to suit her aka fucking around. You need to make her think she is going to loose you for her to go into chase mode again basically. FUCK HER FRIENDS.

agreed. There are biological imperatives, something the mainstream will refuse to accept.

You got me there user rofl.
also tell her that her worst "frienemy" was the best fuck too.

It will never work, you either contemplate this stuff or you simply do not care.

The resemblance is stark.

We all know why the owned media pushes these things lol but you have a great day man.

The moment women chose to be BBC sluts and betray us white man and fuck over our kids they earned their place as race traitors and commited treason.
As such the punishment will be harsh and merciless.
The time for feeling sorry for them has long passed.
We need to mentally prepare ourselves for the inevitable.
I absolutely understand why more and more women feel the fear.

Tell her there is no reason and she should go after her dream with a vengeance.

The herpes sores will put a dent in her enthusiasm probably within a couple of months.

You notice the trad thot trend and the other things they have been doing to try and get men back but yeah I think men will segregate until enough realize what we need to do to fix it.
I am with you on that user.

>It's not immoral. It is, however, degenerate.
This is the correct answer. It used to be possible in the times of antiquity, through a freak of nature, that a young woman would have been "widowed" several times. This shit was also in the bible about the seven brothers having one wife in succession, or that was a parable, not sure.

In any case, the reason why sexual promiscuity is not good comes from several layers of cultural development as well: we have built cultural institutions to save us from living like total animals. One of these was marriage, where a man had a wife and lived with her in the village among near and far family members, and each one protected each other. If there was fucking around going on, this had the potential of seriously throwing the tribe into turmoil and chaos. You can see this today with polygamy being practiced in the Middle East and young men fighting and dying because they are hoping just to get some scraps from the boss hogg mullahs and emirs above them. The women ironically like this situation, because a woman would rather be a second or third wife of a high-status man, than the first wife of a middle or low status man.

Not all of these institutions are seen as good today; the feminist narrative is that women were treated as chattel, as property at the time, when this is a blatant misrepresentation of the situation. It is true that women's freedom was curtailed, in the sense that she wasn't able to fuck around, and if she did, she was consigned to prostitution or banishment from the community.

tl;dr if you want civil war and social breakdown, legalize the fuck out of promiscuity. Else, don't be a retard and stick to the devil you know.

Sexual promiscuity results in a) wasted time, b) accidental pregnancies, c) spread of stds, d) the breakdown of family structure.

I really love it when we can have a thread without jidf/bots/newfags and shit fucking it up.

I am about to hope on rising storm 2 vietnam and you faggots seriously need to get this game if you do not have it.

Peace, my bro dude.

We're far too civilized to savagely exterminate the coal burners and promiscuous degenerates.
Someone will do that for us.
I wouldn't step on an ant without feeling regret but for women it is all over.
Tradthots are trying to cuck us once again while keeping their privilege.
The problem is though that beta fags are becoming disgusted with them.

Do you have a source for that?

It's horrible for society for many of the reasons mentioned in this thread. We have a duty to do things which are good for our society (at least when it's composed of OUR people), out of love, out of connection with one another through shared values/traditions/heritage and because we all depend on one another. Duty to your people is a virtue one must choose for oneself and morality isn't objective.

Instead of blaming your women you should see where you failed them. As men you are supposed to lead society, and you've given that power to the kikes

We failed because the government stripped us of our god given right to be patriatchs and heads of our families.
Since you're a burger and have easy access to weapons why didn't you stand up to feminism?

Promiscuity is bad because it causes unnecessary sexual pressures in selection.

Horses are more promiscuous than humans, and zebras are most promiscuous than horses. What this ends up doing is letting only the dumbest, most aggressive chad with the biggest balls blow his load in zebra-Stacy, which causes her to give birth to a mini-chad, which repeats the cycle when it's permitted.

Zebras, compared to horses you'd see in a stable, are fucking retarded and can't even be trained to pull a cart, because you don't have to be smart to successfully reproduce by gang-bang.

Traditionally, for most of human history, the most "fit" men were fat ugly bastards with lots of wealth or prestige. Like those fat old men in your Japanese cartoons.

It's good for humans to have 80/20 monogamy/harem organization in our reproductive strata because of this, so being a Chad is incentivized, but within the structure of wealth and talent, rather than just beating and raping as many women as you can get your hands on.

Yes it is unfortunate that we have passed the point of no return.
If you steal you'll go to jail when caught. If you racemix and willingly work against your people you'll get the rope.

>she asked me why sexual promiscuity is innately immoral
Son...

Brave new world is about two autists who can't integrate into a utopian society. Sums up pretty much pol and r9k