The West's Moral Nadir

My Recent Posts

Foreword:  This article was inspired by a very good article written by Esme (If We Were Really Serious About Rape Prevention).  She was castigated by those here, personally, to such an extent I felt I should weigh in with a comment.  However, that comment became an article.  Please know that every word is in support of her writing along with my own considerations.



Women are in a difficult position today.  Women have the most powerful social currency at their disposal -- sexual attraction.  They are now given the freedom to wield it freely.  Without the historically typical restraints on this power (religion, social etiquette, etc), women can act freely, as individuals, as they are doing today.  Additionally, technology has given women unparalleled access to individual expression and the ability to exploit this sexual power.  Corporations gladly profit by using this to sell all kinds of products -- because it is the single most powerful method to garnish attention.


We have a very powerful political and liberal culture that is telling women that they can live as they want without consideration for their protection . . . because they are equal to men and have the right to live in liberty and be protected while doing so.  In modern times, technology has amplified this message orders of magnitude.  Half of me agrees with this definition of liberty.  People should live free and express themselves appropriately as freedom is the single biggest factor in progressing society.  However, with freedom comes responsibility and accountability to others.  Without responsibility and accountability, freedom becomes antisocial, narcissistic, and ultimately destructive which is what we are seeing today in our western cultures.


Modern liberalism tells a woman she can wield her power at her will, freely, but do not give her the necessary tools for protection . . . and certainly does not call for personal responsibility.  Women need protection.  Any good father will tell you that.  If women choose to stray into dangerous territory, unprotected, they will be victims . . . eventually. 

In the end, we have way too many victims and a #metoo culture which should be the dead canary warning us that something is severely broken.  Unfortunately, that same powerful culture will then blame men without considering that they themselves and their willing accomplices (women) have very much to do with creating victims.  Where's accountability?

Now, I am all about individual freedom.  However, we cannot neglect to consider that humans have not ever lived truly free -- we have evolved over millennia with social restraints and cultural protections.  We are social creatures and have evolved within our social structures.    The foundations of society and human DNA are mortally interlinked.  The two are not separate.


This sexually unbridled culture will eventually play out in full.  Either we will re-learn what our cultural genome has already programmed in us, or we will evolve into tribes where everyone walks around with their junk out, mates ad-hoc, and our culture is driven back to basic urges.


The evolution of humans as intellectual beings -- are we going to be driven by base instincts or rise intellectually?  Clothing (modesty) is a very important part of intellectual societies.  Clothing protects people, not only from the elements but also from unnecessary base sexual urges. 

There are many basic emotions that prevent the brain from engaging its higher intellectual gears.  To name a few: hunger; fear; pain.  Another -- sexual attraction for which the male half of society is particularly suspect.  Humans cannot, in a few generations, change what nature has programmed in their genes through millions of years.  Until then, our societies become more stupid as with every turn of the eye, is refocused from any higher intellectual thinking back to basic reproductive instincts. 


I suppose none of you "intellectual" wonders here of the progressive-left stripe ever wondered why China has modesty laws and enforces them rigorously.  They look at the west wondering just how long it will be before "liberty" turns our culture into a moral puree.  They understand very well that societies do not stand without moral codes based on social accountability.  The main issue I have with China's method is that it compels accountability by force rather than voluntarily.  Perhaps China's method is the only rational answer as humans, with freedom and lavish means, will revert back to sub-basic human instincts.  After all, we are more emotional animals.  Rational, the ability to think logically over emotion, is a very late evolutionary change with only marginal testing of time (evolutionary speaking).


We are living in a great experiment.  These times -- our times.  I do not have a clue how this will turn out.  It may bid us well.  It could go very bad.  Intellectual societies will either revert back to protecting women/men and reclaim personal responsibility -- the inseparable partner of freedom. 

Or . . .

Humans will evolve (or devolve) intellectually.  Perhaps conservative societies like China and Russia become the dominant cultures in our world.   Maybe Japan is the trend for liberal societies where mating becomes mainly virtual as copulation/reproduction becomes too expensive and too precarious losing almost 1 million a year as old populations die out and never replaced.


Either way this goes, it is going to be painful to change.  Sexual and intellectual health in the west is at a nadir.


Jeff Jackson Added Feb 10, 2019 - 8:10am
Interesting article Spartacus. Yes, Japan's population is falling and the government has been trying to get people to have more children, even offering public money in tax breaks and such. It seems to me that anyone considering whether or not to bring someone into this world should give a lot of thought to what they will do for that new person, what they are willing to give up, and what kind of life they can give that person. 
Steel Breeze Added Feb 10, 2019 - 11:29am
very interesting and well stated......adaptability is being strained.....
Bill Kamps Added Feb 10, 2019 - 12:09pm
The social customs, modest clothing, etc, often protected us from ourselves.  But it also hid what was really going on.  While in the 1950s and before (pick a date), cultural customs were more modest, rape and assault of women went on just the same.  Supervisors assaulted women in order to keep their jobs, or gain advancement, or just because they could.  This was hidden in many ways for many of the same cultural reasons, raped women were stigmatized.
Perhaps, there was less date rape, perhaps there was less rape of women at random in bars because the date rape drug was not yet widely available.  Perhaps less women were raped in random situations because they were better protected.
I think it would be difficult to say, and probably impossible to prove that the sexual freedoms women now enjoy result in more rape.  It may certainly result in more reported rape, and it may move around the circumstances where rape occurs. 
I do think it is true that we are coming to grips with how to deal with this as a society.  Does everyone accused of assaulting  a woman, have to then be unemployable for the rest of their life? And what does assault even mean, since some of these incidents refer to grabbing a woman, or groping them, but not really rape.  Not to condone these activities, but when do they rise to the point of one having to resign one's job, and what  are the statute of limitations?
Now certainly some of the actions of these people, if true, deserve punishment.  But often people are forced to resign before all the facts are out there.  Perhaps they resign because they are guilty  and perhaps not.   We dont know how many of these situations are similar to the Duke lacrosse team, and how many are truthful and represent repeated predatory behavior on the part of the powerful.  Certainly that kind of behavior has been going on as long as there were powerful men, which is to say forever. 
Dino Manalis Added Feb 10, 2019 - 12:17pm
 Independence is necessary, but men and women still need each other!
Cullen Kehoe Added Feb 10, 2019 - 6:41pm
It's a bizarre topic. 
There used to be enforced social conventions around love and marriage. People began throwing off these old fashioned notions in the 20th century.
"Take me out the ballgame" was a song written just after the turn of the 20th century from a woman's point of view. She's telling a man who is courting her what she's really like to do (instead of the boring old--I imagine--take a walk in the park or have a picnic). 
Then, it went into overdrive in the 1950's with rock 'n roll and 2nd wave feminism. You started hearing that courting, encouraging modesty, and even marriage itself were all things invented by men to restrict women and keep them down. ("I don't breed well in captivity" - Gloria Steinem in the 70's). 
But today...who in a relationship who often desires marriage? The man or the woman? Who were all these conventions for all along? Do men really like to have chaperoned dates and walks in the park while they woo a woman and pledge their lives and their finances just to sleep with her? Is that something men would come up? 
All this was always to protect women. Even marriage itself you could argue benefits women and handicaps men at the outset (although as women have children over time, they get handicapped by nature). 
It's so bizarre for many feminists today to encourage women to do stupid and, in many cases, dangerous stuff to throw off the imagined confines of society....that were always there to protect them and make life easier on them. 
I have no problem with a feminist who decides to buck the system. She can find out someday how wrong she was when life kicks her in the it does.
But these young feminists with powerful platforms encourage other women to do the same ("put off having kids until you're 40....despite that fact that many women will be unable by the late age", "Go out with as little clothes on as possible and get wasted drunk....just like a MAN!", "spend your 20's focused on your are most attracted to women in their early 20's, but THEY need to grow up and get attracted to your mind"). 
opher goodwin Added Feb 11, 2019 - 9:23am
Not all societies have been misogynistic. This culture of misogyny and female suppression of sexuality is part of the Abrahamic tradition and is traced back to the nomadic Arabic tribes who hid their women away and bartered them as goods.
That culture has become the dominant one in the West for some strange reason.
It seems obvious to me that women are different but still the equal of men. As a gender they might not be as strong but they are as intellectually endowed.
In a world where technology has replaced brawn they are equal in all respects.
They should also be free to express their sexuality without being beholden to men. They are no longer chattels.
As this technology and the liberation of women is new there is no doubt going to be some problems adjusting and a backlash from some who resent equality, just as there are with race.
perhaps we should go back and look at previous matriarchal societies that lived a more sexually liberated life? 
Examples of matriarchal societies exist in places like regions of China, Indonesia, among South American Natives, and Kenya. They seem to manage very nicely. I wonder if their societies are less aggressive and care and respect nature more? I think I might like to live in one of those cultures.
Cullen Kehoe Added Feb 11, 2019 - 6:49pm
"This culture of misogyny and female suppression of sexuality is part of the Abrahamic tradition and is traced back to the nomadic Arabic tribes who hid their women away and bartered them as goods."
Nearly all cultures on planet earth behaved this way. The Europeans traveling around North America, the Pacific, the Arctic, India, everywhere the men ended up, they'd barter with the local people for a few goes with the women (who were either wives or daughters of other guys). 
I think you have to admit that matriarchal societies were the exception to the rule. There are always exceptions out there. (Viking women had more rights than other women of the time because the men were often away, so they had to run things while they were gone.)
Cullen Kehoe Added Feb 11, 2019 - 6:50pm
How many great societies of history were matriarchal? 
Cullen Kehoe Added Feb 11, 2019 - 7:39pm
My point was simply...I don't buy this "it's all religion's fault that men are in charge" narrative. 90% of the time, that's just how civilizations developed.

Don't blame Christianity. In some obscure corner of Asia, I'm sure the people drink blood or are vegans or ride around on ostriches. The point is it doesn't matter what some obscure little village in the Amazon does. 
Maybe we're all moving into a brave new world where women will be in charge of everything and walk around naked and jail men for speaking to them. I don't know. It doesn't sound like a utopia. And there's the elephant in the room that most women seek out men who have greater status than they do (which varies according to culture if that equates to money or physical strength or titles or all three). So if women sexually desire men with greater status but men are of less status what happens then? If Japan is a guide, nobody marries or has any children. 
Ward Tipton Added Feb 12, 2019 - 8:09am
Look around and stop and think about how stupid the average person is. Now think about the fact that half of them are actually more stupid than that which can be observed. 
The enlightenment is being killed in the very same halls of academia that gave room for its birth. 
Intellectual Darwinism is dead. Intellectual evolution has fallen into the annals of history. 
Welcome to the world that believes that Idiocracy is the new utopian paradise we have been striving for throughout our long evolutionary struggle. 

Recent Articles by Writers Spartacus follows.