Sexual revolution

Any social change in society has an inertia or lag of at least a few decades, until society notices its full effect. This was mentioned casually in J.D. Unwin's 1934 "Sex and Culture". Unwin noticed that a change in sexual relationships had an inertia of roughly 3 generations (~70 years), since this is the time it takes for a society to fully remove any social restraints from the past. The defeminization of women is not a new phenomenon. Even Nietzsche mentioned it in "Beyond Good and Evil", when he wrote:

>They want more, they learn to make claims, the tribute of respect is at last felt to be well-nigh galling; rivalry for rights, indeed actual strife itself, would be preferred: in a word, woman is losing modesty. And let us immediately add that she is also losing taste. She is unlearning to FEAR man: but the woman who "unlearns to fear" sacrifices her most womanly instincts.

This was in 1886. Around 1900, women got the right to vote in many countries. The social inertia (and also the 2 world wars) kept women in line, but 3 generations later they pushed towards the next step and initiated the sexual revolution around 1970.

>What is the effect of the sexual revolution?
The answer is: We don't know yet. The full effect of the sexual revolution will become visible around 2040, as we still have some social restraints (e.g. "slut shaming" or provider mentality by most men), but anyone with open eyes sees the rapid transformation of society.

What I currently see is that society goes through a period of tinderization. Women try to maximize their alpha fucks during their peak sexual market value period and hope to cash out on a beta bucks when their time is about to run out; men adapt their sexual strategies by shifting from traditional provider roles to the emulation of alpha behaviour to pay the women in tingles instead of a secure home. The process of tinderization is still ongoing, and we can expect to see A LOT more of this in the future.

Other urls found in this thread:

dandebat.dk/images/1205p.jpg)
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>What is the endgame of the sexual revolution?
Following the "3 generations rule", we can expect to observe the full impact of the sexual revolution around 2030-2040.

However, I believe the endgame will be primarily determined by the economic impact of the sexual revolution. The economic impact however, has again an inertia of a few decades. On average, women are a net drain on society, while men are a net asset. In some countries, this is true for the average women at any point of her life, and even in more gender equalist countries where women work throughout their lives such as Denmark, women remain a net drain over their lifetime (dandebat.dk/images/1205p.jpg) (red line: women's fiscal contribution, blue line: men's).

The graphs you see were by men whose main sexual strategy was the strategy of provision. A lot of young men who in previous times would have hated their work but nevertheless kept doing it in order to provide for their family, have adapted their sexual strategies and get pussy by lifting and playing in a band, rather than being net contributors to the state. The young men that drop out today will reduce the average net contribution not only for today, but for the next 40 years.

The dropout of men in academia is not a problem for the young girl studying today. She will get cheered by everyone in the media and the president to show these stupid boys that women can do everything a man can do. But the following absence of high-income men in corporate positions will affect the girl in 10-15 years, when her alpha fucks period is over and she starts looking for a beta provider. The cohort of 35yo women that whines about the lack of eligible men today, will grow even larger as the academic gap keeps growing.

What is even worse is the impact of dysgenic fertility. By pushing high IQ women into universities and 60-hour/week careers, you raise the opportunity cost for high IQ women to produce offspring. On the other hand, the increase in welfare state incentivises low IQ women to breed, financed either directly through child support from a productive male or indirectly through beta men by taxes.
Who reproduces today is completely irrelevant in the next 15-25 years. It is only after that period it begins to matter whether the kid is of low IQ or high IQ origin, as it determines whether the kid will end up inventing new stuff as an engineer or steal and murder. Brazil is serving as a perfect example for this effect - it has the most dysgenic fertility worldwide. Just compare the world cup 1950 in Brazil with the world cup 2014 in Brazil. They seemed to be 2 completely different countries, but there was just 64 years in between.

These effects will cripple the welfare state in an irreversible manner. Even if some politicians in the future will notice the catastrophic consequences of their well-intentioned policies, it will be too late. In any case, what you can look forward to in 2040 is a huge amount of unhappy and jaded 50yo single women with cats and tats on their backs and arms. And a bunch of 25yo angry, low IQ males that are born today and raised by a low IQ single moms with help of your money. Go to Liveleak and take a look at videos from Brazil - it serves as a good indication of what young males without any perspective are capable of.

The endgame of women's suffrage was the sexual revolution. The endgame of the sexual revolution will be the collapse of the Western society.

>inb4 thread dies after 3 replies because this wasn't baity enough

...

...

Pastebin?

thank you for this apu

Literally made for the BBC.

me on the right

>this image
It says 250 years is how long it takes for civilizations to fall. This seems kind of ham fisted and American-centric because there's many other countries that have lasted for 1000s.

Vox Day gives us to 2033 because that's when the age of our currency will match the historical average lifespan for currencies.

Gotta go to finngolia soon...

Okay but still, my point is that this whole "theory of declining empires" thing is basically a guy cherry picking history and ham fisting it to fit with the American collapse.

I agree all the things he talks about lead to civilization falling and America is in a downward spiral, but this guy's work seems kind of ham fisted.

Link?

Tl;dr bit that ass, though

>The answer is: We don't know yet.
The result is that everything but the largest cities are devoid of young women. Most of them either pursue a career or narcissistic endeavors, thus we have the bizarre scenario where places with the highest ratio of fertile females have the lowest birth rates.

What do you mean by paying in tingles?

Sexual revolution = destruction of the nuclear family = lack of support for kids = incapable adults = regression of civilization.

He's repeated recently in periscopes, but here's a reddit AMA from 4 years ago.

The nose knows.

when you're looking at monarchies, the transition from dynasty to dynasty sometimes changes the same country into a new entity

there's often rises and falls in power for most entities which last over hundreds of years

these changes stave off the decline of civilizations, since the examples given only have to do with a stable entity which only maintained and/or expanded with time. obviously a civilization which is constantly changing in power/stability over a century will not have a period of opulence which ends it. the power structures are still 100% needed for support in the eyes of the people in this case.

that's a nice brapper

Which leads to more and more people becoming reliant on a massive state apparatus to survive. The sexual revolution is literally a tool of the state to disenfranchise individuals while claiming to "empower" them. It's odd.

BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP

The idea is from a british guy, and its empire, not civilization, the point is every 250 years there needs to be a major social order renewal

kek stop it

I'm a virgin and cant get a girl: the thread

Lock down a good one and avoid the coming sexual market crash

Omg are those women?

That's my fetish.

>I think getting my small dick in my fat's girlfriend pussy makes me superior than others

Mating can always be made more cutthroat, but that doesn't mean it's necessary or good for society. Why do you think it shouldn't be discussed?

Good argument.

Large scare societal changes take longer time to fully develop than what people think. And even 5 years is a long time span for common man. You can definitely see how the male sex has adapted to post sexual revolution society. The difference between winners and losers in the sexual marketplace is becoming more and more pronounced. Competition has become more and more severe, which pushes obvious failures out of the marketplace completely. Many never even enter it. What is more, men are very conscious about the new found demands on them, which breeds cynicism, despair, and irreverence. Women are blissfully ignorant as always though, and will probably remain so, even after they have to face the fact that "good men" are becoming increasingly hard to find.

>It's not that people won't find love
>It's not that they won't reproduce
>It's not that their lives will be miserable

It's that genuine love becomes more scarce and breakups becoming a commonplace event. It's that fewer people will reproduce. It's that their families will be smaller.

We're not looking at a collapse, but a slow and continuous decline. What you're looking at is a trend that will never end.

pretty interesting thread finbro, I have to agree.

lol. thanks user.

thanks for posting my text. its the text i wrote for theredpill to give some exposure to the thoughts of unwin.

makes me happy to see it is at least being read by more people.

i will provide an updated version with more context (this text was originally written before the 2015 muslim invasion in europe) and exact quotes from unwin, as well as an prediction of how the endgame will look like.

cheers,
hammurabi

*sniff sniff*

Can someone screencap these three posts I'm mid fap

letting women use the internet and become involved in politics is like releasing blacks into space. we have to cure ourselves before we allow wisespread access to high-impact technology

because cheap thrills and superiority feel good

Sup Forums was right again.

Yeah, that's where I got this from way back when. Can't remember if it was a thread or just a comment but whatever.

Can you give me a spoiler about your prediction on the endgame?

This is why exists.
Solely because of the sexual marketplace making losers to lose very hard.

/pol. Does anyone here ever leave the house? This whole board is fueled by sexual frustration. Just because no one here is getting laid, there's a white genocide. Look at the fucking book OP wrote to rationalize his sorry ass.

remember, anons, to refuse late-twenties+ roastie access to your beta bucks

>Does anyone here ever leave the house?
Did it once when Wifi connection fucked up
> Look at the fucking book OP wrote
>Sup Forums
>Writing books
Nice bait

>projecting this hard

We're living in a modern day Weimar Republic.

Change is indeed coming.

you dont think that such a high number of men that arent participating in the new sexual marketplace is going to negatively impact society? that is what this thread is about. the sexual revolution wasnt an overnight decree of "you arent allowed to get laid" it was a consolidation of power that happened a long time ago and we are the children born into that messed up world. open your eyes and see what is right under your nose.

M O I S T

Read the full post before you post, virgins. Mating still happens, but supportive nuclear families are in a spiral decline, and the couples most qualified for raising children are childless.

Gtfo with your Freudian pseudoscience

Surplus men are worthless.

There are plenty of jobs that are much more suited towards men, in terms of efficiency, output, competency, etc. Jobs like that are few and far between, you might be lucky and be in some STEM field or maybe you're a construction worker making an honest wage. None of this fucking matters really because it's all made insignificant in the shadow of the retail and service industry. The size of the entire retail / service industry is often reported in terms of %GDP. What isn't often reported is the absolutely staggering number of people working these jobs. As a joke we sometimes mockingly call them McJobs. They aren't seen as real jobs and it isn't something any politician is about to go around bragging about when he's taking credit for how many "new jobs" he's brought to his constituents.

But here's the fucking stone cold reality, the average person is gonna wind up in this kind of job. Most of these jobs are so simple they can be done 100% competently by either sex. Men are fucking pointless by large, there's nothing to distinguish from any other warm body in the eyes of the economy. Back when the labor market needed men specifically to power the nation's industry, men had authority and some degree of bargaining power within society just for being men. The man married, had children, and provided for his family. You were more or less the main character in your own little personal novel.

All of that shit is out the window now. Men are good for nothing. You don't derive any authority from being bigger and stronger in an age where you can't even shove another person without getting hit with some kind of assault charge. You don't derive any authority from your role as a sole provider because that role doesn't exist anymore, you just gotta hope that you and your wife make enough combined money as bottom feeders. Men have traditionally had privileges afforded to them because it was understood that men were valuable to society. Not anymore.

I'd suppose that the correct answer to this question is: don't ask stupid questions.

Psychology is a cult.

Psychologists and the whole field love to convince themselves they're right and know what's best for us.

Or in other words; having a high IQ is a handicap for a female.

>men and women are warm bodies
>half of the warm bodies drop out while the other half is severely weakened
>muh retail industry

yeah. you dont have an agenda or anything

I'm going to say this yet again.
End
of
Rome.
That's all there is to it. This is the end and the quicker you accept that, the quicker you can get to preparing for the collapse and saving your hide. End of story.

Sup Forums is always right.

I would like to coin a term "sexual marxism".
Traditionally women have been exclusively "property" of their husbands. Now they are public property. The means of reproduction have been collectivised.

It's also a political powerplay.
A means to impression political opponents under the guise that they're mentally ill.

GENERATION ZYKLON

*BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP*

You're confusing psychoanalysis with psychology famalam

...

>Now they are public property.
They know they are. This is why most coalburners don't even care that the nigger they are sleeping with will almost certainly run off.

>What I currently see is that society goes through a period of tinderization. Women try to maximize their alpha fucks during their peak sexual market value period and hope to cash out on a beta bucks when their time is about to run out; men adapt their sexual strategies by shifting from traditional provider roles to the emulation of alpha behaviour to pay the women in tingles instead of a secure home. The process of tinderization is still ongoing, and we can expect to see A LOT more of this in the future.

Really, the general effect is a drop in marriage and thereby a drop in the birthrate and the country's population. It's been ongoing, but with Tinder, these rates will dramatically accelerate. Why get married and get "locked" down, when the effort to get an even potentially better mate is just a finger swipe? Women will always consider leveling up when the effort to do so is less than what she's willing to tolerate, and Tinder makes that effort really low.

Of course, the downstream effect compounds the disaster - depression rates skyrocket, less young people supporting older people living longer, new ideas stagnate, less businesses are formed, immigration from 3rd world countries is explored, etc.

So like did you have an argument...... or?

A perfect example of a woman married to the government is the Polish race-mixer with the mutant baby. She calls her "husband", the media and the police, when her family is being threatened. The allegiance was there for the government to begin with. She never cared even the slightest bit if the nigga would run off.

Ah yes, men are expendable. But couple of good wars will reset all of this and put them back on top again. Women will always become second rate citizens after a long enough time, because they lack the aptitude for violence.

You need to think about the process in waves.

Yep, it's terrible.

And yet I really want to fuck that ass while the other two watch.

Nah. Show some strictness and authority and a social change will come in two hours.

Yeah, we've got a problem right now. But gender roles still exist for the most part and frankly, I don't see them going away, at least in my country. I don't know if it's just because we're talking about the West vs. my country or just because this board is full of angry neckbeards, but this whole "muh alpha chad taking all wimminz for himself" is blown way out of proportion. Sure, there are women who are genuinely attracted to shitstains - but those women are a minority and are shitstains themselves and they stick to their own kind (dumb subhuman trash). Those aren't the women you want raising children. At least around here.

Nice bum

Whatever bros, im so good looking when im 35-40 and im ready for a relationship ill have all that 20yo pussy hitting me up on facebook lol

...

That's bullshit because we're literally importing millions of low iq foreigners to take the places of the children they would have had. The average middle class family man is more important than any savant

always a good post.

One word counterargument:
Automation.

How did you do this to youre pic?
>reply to youre post
Its definitely going to negatively impact society what with all the dumb whores making more divorced homes

Thanks

Sure. And because some men can't get a girl, they drop out of the society instead of doing important jobs like plumbing and thus paying taxes to uphold the civilization.

I'm so glad I locked down a qt and am already making babies.

My wife is traditional but she also wanted to work. My solution was to start a business with her.

Best fucking decision of my life. We now have total independence, make plenty of money, know each other much better than the "hey honey I'm home" meme (which we did for a few years too, mind you), and as the man of the house I make final decisions on both home and business.

The iron pill is an important piece of the red pill and I implore all anons to take it. We started our business at the same time I decided to quit my job, we moved to another state, and we had a kid all in the same week no joke, and I was getting a master's degree just because. And guess what - we're fine. And kids aren't expensive at all, use washable diapers if you're that worried, they literally can live off the teet and nothing else.

Grow some balls, take a risk and trust your judgement. You can command your own life if you choose to. "But it's stressful" "but I haven't saved hundreds of thousands of dollars" that's all beta bullshit. You'll be fine. We learn to swim only under threat of drowning.

This whole post is a tard tier strawman.
The fact is that individualism has killed our sexual culture. Truly good relationships between men and women are becoming rarer and rarer and the best women are being told to waste their lives slaving away in an office rather than have kids.

...

Good post, the 70 rule is a bit out dated in our era of technology though. With mass media and social media new ideas are able to spread EXTREMELY quickly (just look at this site for fuck sake) making the transition times between swings of the pendulum shorter and shorter. I would estimate the next social revolution will begin in the mid 2020s and we are already seeing the beginning of it into todays world via the rise of nationalistic parties in Europe and the election of Donald trump. Generation Z is estimated to be the most conservative since the second world war. The real truth is that in all honesty the problems of todays world are because of white men, but not because of white men's tyranny or oppression but rather unwillingness in the last decade to dominate the earth without conscience or care. Also you say that the sexual revolution began in the 1960s I would argue that it began half a decade earlier with women's suffrage leading up to that time of cultural decay and moral degeneracy known as the roaring 20s. Which would give credence to the 70 years rule as it lines up fairly well with the events of 911 and the beginning of antimuslimism neo nationalism sentiment. In the simplest of turns the west will not be ruled by social liberalism for much longer, it will be ruled by a strong conservative culture; be it Christian in nature or Islamic.

Surplus retards are worse

No, the entire mental health field is both a cult and a money making scheme.

I'm glad you're doing so well, but there aren't enough elements to support people like you into a trend reversal.

Now that's a nice and juicy ass.

You need to think larger
>industrial revolution -> destruction of social bonds -> rise of feminism with a rise of automation of traditional feminine labor -> loss of extended family (cousins, aunts, uncles, grandparents) -> replaced with idealized nuclear family

I think i fucked up the order, but its something like that, you gott a think BIG include more factors!

...

Holy fucking shit this can't be real lmfao

Shame the slut.

Do not encourage such behavior.

This goes back way before the industrial rev imo

How is my post a strawman, you autist? I didn't even argue OP, I just said something on a related note concerning the theory of "muh bad boy chad".

>alpha fucks during their peak sexual market value period and hope to cash out on a beta bucks

Stopped reading there. Go take your beta bawws back to

That reminds me of what Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in "Democracy in America"

>"They (the emperors) frequently abused their power arbitrarily to deprive their subjects of property or of life: their tyranny was extremely onerous to the few, but it did not reach the greater number; .. But it would seem that if despotism were to be established amongst the democratic nations of our days it might assume a different character; it would be more extensive and more mild, it would degrade men without tormenting them."

>"After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the government then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence: it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."

No one disputes that the physical superiority of men is all but obsolete in the modern age. The reason men are superior to women is that they are more intelligent. The score higher on IQ tests in every race of humans on the planet, they have naturally more logical minds and are much more capable of making decisions without emotional biases, this is why most bankers, stockbrokers, investors, CEOs, and political leaders are male. It is also a reason why women have no real place in a voting mass be it a constitutional republic or democracy. Its not that women are worthless or even worth less then men, it is merely that biology has determined that men ought to be the natural leaders of the human race. The only problem with women is that society doesn't tell them their job (nor does it tell men their job either)

Why are white birth rates lowering?

Refer to OPs pic.

Yeah well it's easy to say that that's false since western civilization has been going pretty strong for 2000 yes. But when you break it up to american empire, British empire, Roman republic and Roman empire, all these individual ones last about 300 yrs

Muh bad boy chad isn't related, tard
>societal discussions backed by evidence don't belong here
>posts gramsci
Lel

Yeah of course, definitely I would say large part of change was with the Enlightenment and French Revolution. I am an uneducated pleb though, so I can't comment, I'm just throwing ideas I read somewhere else out.