Does this Crisis echo the Glorious Revolutuon?

[beechnut79]

(02-19-2019, 11:35 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-19-2019, 07:22 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(02-18-2019, 03:37 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: However, all cultures and their peoples have their right to exist in peace as long as they don't break the laws, which are based on moral values. I dissent from any idea that such moral values are relative to time, evolution or culture. Their articulation in specific lists and rules may change, but not their essence.

But I don't think that such aesthetic or moral relativism is a prominent feature of the Left in politics. So I'm not sure what you mean.

I don't like the fact that Leftists refuse to condemn Islam, even if they ostensibly stand for atheism and rationalism.

No religion of any stripe is evil in and of itself.  It's only evil when practiced by evil people.  Of course, religion is the prefect foil for the larcenous and power hungry.  It's its own justification.

Bill the Piper Wrote:

Eric the Green Wrote:I don't think you advocate culture-war religious-right efforts, but I agree with the Left of course on such issues as gay rights and government-sponsored religion in public places. Abortion is an issue that can be compromised, but that doesn't seem to be possible just now.

I could just say that I'd like to see the effects of sexual revolution reversed to some degree. The entertainment industry in particular needs to be purged. To some extent, reversing the sexual revolution requires the dominant ethos of individualism (which regards selfish pursuit of happiness as the goal of life) to die off, and new ethos of communitarianism to replace it. Parents staying together for their child's sake, even if they no longer get the thrills in bed. Like it was with the GIs and previous generations.

I have to agree with much of this.  The sexual revolution had far too many excesses to remain dominant in a less hyper-individualist society.  Communalism is returning and some degree of puritanical ethos will return with it.

But the most recent sexual revolution had its beginnings in a communal setting. It was the hippie communes that first promoted the "free love" ethic.

[pbrower2a]

Free love became seemingly much safer after the Pill and easy treatments for VD. When pregnancy was no longer an avoidable consequence of extramarital sex and VD was no lo9nger such a menace (the latter of course changed with AIDS), extramarital sex became much less perilous.

[galaxy]

(02-19-2019, 11:35 AM)David Horn Wrote:

Bill the Piper Wrote:

Eric the Green Wrote:I don't think you advocate culture-war religious-right efforts, but I agree with the Left of course on such issues as gay rights and government-sponsored religion in public places. Abortion is an issue that can be compromised, but that doesn't seem to be possible just now.

I could just say that I'd like to see the effects of sexual revolution reversed to some degree. The entertainment industry in particular needs to be purged. To some extent, reversing the sexual revolution requires the dominant ethos of individualism (which regards selfish pursuit of happiness as the goal of life) to die off, and new ethos of communitarianism to replace it. Parents staying together for their child's sake, even if they no longer get the thrills in bed. Like it was with the GIs and previous generations.

I have to agree with much of this.  The sexual revolution had far too many excesses to remain dominant in a less hyper-individualist society.  Communalism is returning and some degree of puritanical ethos will return with it.

I'm not sure what it looks like from your "age location in history" (or whatever S+H's exact term was), but I can tell you that to me (born 2001) it certainly looks like there is a "new sexual conservatism" emerging in recent years, especially since 2017. It is coming from younger people and from the political left, with the most enthusiastic supporters of it being the same age group as the "enforcers" of the new Millennial values consensus (those born 1988-1996). It is generally perceived, even by those who oppose it, as a further sexual liberalization, despite actually being the opposite.

One example I like to use is this:

In 1984, the federal government pressured states to raise their drinking ages to 21 by withholding highway funding from states with ages below 21.
Before then, there was wide variation of drinking ages, but all were 18, 19, 20, or 21.
Right now, a similar situation exists with the age of sexual consent. Depending on the state, it is either 16, 17, or 18 (plus some complications and technicalities).
It is conceivable that the federal government could, if there was a base of support for it, take a similar action with the age of consent, and use some kind of withheld funding to pressure states to raise their age to 18.

Now, you tell me:

Which party would have been more likely to do something like this in, say, 2002?
And which party would be more likely to do it now?

And that's the new left-wing sexual conservatism.


You also see the same "position-switch" happening with pornography right now, and you can really see the difference between turnings with that one. There is almost no religious rhetoric left in the anti-pornography movement. Today it's all about exploitation of the performers, and potential psychological harm, like addiction or distorted and unrealistic worldviews and expectations. No one is talking about how "it's morally wrong, separates people from [insert your higher power of choice here], goes against [his/her/its/their] creation, contributes to "depravity," turns the frogs gay" and so on. It's not moralistic anymore, it's pragmatic. If that's not a good example of a 2T/3T vs. 4T/1T opposition, then I don't know what is.

[beechnut79]

(11-11-2021, 02:47 AM)galaxy Wrote:

(02-19-2019, 11:35 AM)David Horn Wrote:

Bill the Piper Wrote:

Eric the Green Wrote:I don't think you advocate culture-war religious-right efforts, but I agree with the Left of course on such issues as gay rights and government-sponsored religion in public places. Abortion is an issue that can be compromised, but that doesn't seem to be possible just now.

I could just say that I'd like to see the effects of sexual revolution reversed to some degree. The entertainment industry in particular needs to be purged. To some extent, reversing the sexual revolution requires the dominant ethos of individualism (which regards selfish pursuit of happiness as the goal of life) to die off, and new ethos of communitarianism to replace it. Parents staying together for their child's sake, even if they no longer get the thrills in bed. Like it was with the GIs and previous generations.

I have to agree with much of this.  The sexual revolution had far too many excesses to remain dominant in a less hyper-individualist society.  Communalism is returning and some degree of puritanical ethos will return with it.

I'm not sure what it looks like from your "age location in history" (or whatever S+H's exact term was), but I can tell you that to me (born 2001) it certainly looks like there is a "new sexual conservatism" emerging in recent years, especially since 2017. It is coming from younger people and from the political left, with the most enthusiastic supporters of it being the same age group as the "enforcers" of the new Millennial values consensus (those born 1988-1996). It is generally perceived, even by those who oppose it, as a further sexual liberalization, despite actually being the opposite.

One example I like to use is this:

In 1984, the federal government pressured states to raise their drinking ages to 21 by withholding highway funding from states with ages below 21.
Before then, there was wide variation of drinking ages, but all were 18, 19, 20, or 21.
Right now, a similar situation exists with the age of sexual consent. Depending on the state, it is either 16, 17, or 18 (plus some complications and technicalities).
It is conceivable that the federal government could, if there was a base of support for it, take a similar action with the age of consent, and use some kind of withheld funding to pressure states to raise their age to 18.

Now, you tell me:

Which party would have been more likely to do something like this in, say, 2002?
And which party would be more likely to do it now?

And that's the new left-wing sexual conservatism.


You also see the same "position-switch" happening with pornography right now, and you can really see the difference between turnings with that one. There is almost no religious rhetoric left in the anti-pornography movement. Today it's all about exploitation of the performers, and potential psychological harm, like addiction or distorted and unrealistic worldviews and expectations. No one is talking about how "it's morally wrong, separates people from [insert your higher power of choice here], goes against [his/her/its/their] creation, contributes to "depravity," turns the frogs gay" and so on. It's not moralistic anymore, it's pragmatic. If that's not a good example of a 2T/3T vs. 4T/1T opposition, then I don't know what is.

Keep in mind that the drinking age and age of sexual consent are lower nearly everywhere outside of the US. And a couple of years ago the minimum age for tobacco purchase was also raised to 21.  For a time I worked occasionally at an innovation center for McDoanald’s and observed that in some European countries beer is served in their restaurants. That is because they don’t have the fetish for having to check IDs as the US does.  Many things formerly reserved for the states to decide on have been usurped by the federal government, daylight saving time among them.

[pbrower2a]

(11-11-2021, 02:47 AM)galaxy Wrote:

(02-19-2019, 11:35 AM)David Horn Wrote:

Bill the Piper Wrote:

Eric the Green Wrote:I don't think you advocate culture-war religious-right efforts, but I agree with the Left of course on such issues as gay rights and government-sponsored religion in public places. Abortion is an issue that can be compromised, but that doesn't seem to be possible just now.

I could just say that I'd like to see the effects of sexual revolution reversed to some degree. The entertainment industry in particular needs to be purged. To some extent, reversing the sexual revolution requires the dominant ethos of individualism (which regards selfish pursuit of happiness as the goal of life) to die off, and new ethos of communitarianism to replace it. Parents staying together for their child's sake, even if they no longer get the thrills in bed. Like it was with the GIs and previous generations.

I have to agree with much of this.  The sexual revolution had far too many excesses to remain dominant in a less hyper-individualist society.  Communalism is returning and some degree of puritanical ethos will return with it.

I'm not sure what it looks like from your "age location in history" (or whatever S+H's exact term was), but I can tell you that to me (born 2001) it certainly looks like there is a "new sexual conservatism" emerging in recent years, especially since 2017. It is coming from younger people and from the political left, with the most enthusiastic supporters of it being the same age group as the "enforcers" of the new Millennial values consensus (those born 1988-1996). It is generally perceived, even by those who oppose it, as a further sexual liberalization, despite actually being the opposite.

One example I like to use is this:

In 1984, the federal government pressured states to raise their drinking ages to 21 by withholding highway funding from states with ages below 21.
Before then, there was wide variation of drinking ages, but all were 18, 19, 20, or 21.
Right now, a similar situation exists with the age of sexual consent. Depending on the state, it is either 16, 17, or 18 (plus some complications and technicalities).
It is conceivable that the federal government could, if there was a base of support for it, take a similar action with the age of consent, and use some kind of withheld funding to pressure states to raise their age to 18.

Now, you tell me:

Which party would have been more likely to do something like this in, say, 2002?
And which party would be more likely to do it now?

And that's the new left-wing sexual conservatism.


You also see the same "position-switch" happening with pornography right now, and you can really see the difference between turnings with that one. There is almost no religious rhetoric left in the anti-pornography movement. Today it's all about exploitation of the performers, and potential psychological harm, like addiction or distorted and unrealistic worldviews and expectations. No one is talking about how "it's morally wrong, separates people from [insert your higher power of choice here], goes against [his/her/its/their] creation, contributes to "depravity," turns the frogs gay" and so on. It's not moralistic anymore, it's pragmatic. If that's not a good example of a 2T/3T vs. 4T/1T opposition, then I don't know what is.

 People are getting wise to the exploitative, unreal, and destructive character of contemporary pornography. Gentler forms of erotica might survive if they could introduce love and empathy... of course such is contrary to the taste of the market for porn as we now know it. Maybe these gentler forms would have more literary value for introducing some mystery. Does she go for the money of the millionaire with medical problems or for someone of like age? Or does she pry him away from video games and porn?

I can imagine writers adopting the old 'riches as achievement' stories into 'sex as achievement' stories. I can speak from only one side, but this reality is beyond denial: some females of a certain age who are even of ordinary appearance look better without clothes than with them. That is an artistic fact even if the nudity isn't explicit. 

Porn is ugly even if the people doing it are attractive. It pushes some unflattering stereotypes of ethnic groups, including that blacks are hyper-sexual -- if women, whores by nature (please -- this is a terrible view), and if men, sexual athletes who can outperform white men with you-know-what just as (name black baseball star) can outperform white men with a baseball bat. Asian women are sex-hungry "dragon ladies" intent on fornicating with anyone non-Asian while Asian men are worthless as sexual partners. Such stereotypes deny individuality in sexuality, which is horrible. It fosters acts that are delightful for one participant and painful for the other while creating risks for both 'partners'. 

I want healthy, happy families because such is best for the future of our society. I see plenty wrong with rich and successful men ditching their wives when the women are about 40 and lose their bloom so that those men can get 'fresh (sexual) meat'. Kids from broken marriages can easily become highly manipulative, which suggests much of the cause of contemporary narcissism.

[Eric the Green]

(11-11-2021, 11:44 AM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(11-11-2021, 02:47 AM)galaxy Wrote:

(02-19-2019, 11:35 AM)David Horn Wrote:

Bill the Piper Wrote:

Eric the Green Wrote:I don't think you advocate culture-war religious-right efforts, but I agree with the Left of course on such issues as gay rights and government-sponsored religion in public places. Abortion is an issue that can be compromised, but that doesn't seem to be possible just now.

I could just say that I'd like to see the effects of sexual revolution reversed to some degree. The entertainment industry in particular needs to be purged. To some extent, reversing the sexual revolution requires the dominant ethos of individualism (which regards selfish pursuit of happiness as the goal of life) to die off, and new ethos of communitarianism to replace it. Parents staying together for their child's sake, even if they no longer get the thrills in bed. Like it was with the GIs and previous generations.

I have to agree with much of this.  The sexual revolution had far too many excesses to remain dominant in a less hyper-individualist society.  Communalism is returning and some degree of puritanical ethos will return with it.

I'm not sure what it looks like from your "age location in history" (or whatever S+H's exact term was), but I can tell you that to me (born 2001) it certainly looks like there is a "new sexual conservatism" emerging in recent years, especially since 2017. It is coming from younger people and from the political left, with the most enthusiastic supporters of it being the same age group as the "enforcers" of the new Millennial values consensus (those born 1988-1996). It is generally perceived, even by those who oppose it, as a further sexual liberalization, despite actually being the opposite.
....
It is conceivable that the federal government could, if there was a base of support for it, take a similar action with the age of consent, and use some kind of withheld funding to pressure states to raise their age to 18.

Keep in mind that the drinking age and age of sexual consent are lower nearly everywhere outside of the US. And a couple of years ago the minimum age for tobacco purchase was also raised to 21.  For a time I worked occasionally at an innovation center for McDoanald’s and observed that in some European countries beer is served in their restaurants. That is because they don’t have the fetish for having to check IDs as the US does.  Many things formerly reserved for the states to decide on have been usurped by the federal government, daylight saving time among them.

Fourth turnings according to the authors are times of greater sexual and puritannical repression and greater distance between the sexes, and the crisis mentality in general means pleasure and social adventure takes a back seat to necessity. Even in the late 2T this time around, the religious right revival began that established a repressive trend that has solidified in mostly rural and small-town "red" voting districts and counties.

One historian I read asserted that cultural and social freedoms, once attained, are not reversed, even if they are temporarily. Prohibition of alcohol did not last, for example.

Even in our 4T there is increasing tolerance of drugs that loosen our inhibitions or awaken our consciousness, and greater acceptance of gay rights and transgender rights, even though there are murders by prejudiced people of transgender people of color that is an outrageous and evil trend.

So sexual liberation will be back early in the next 2T. It will not entirely fade away now even in the more communal-oriented society we are entering. This communal trend has been retarded this time around by the neoliberal ideology that keeps hanging around. So I imagine that sexual repression will not go all the way back to 1940 levels this time around either. But right now the pandemic is a necessary thing to deal with, and the results are repressive.

I disagree with the great repression of sex going on; the extreme penalties for sexual indiscretions that don't fit the crime, and the excesses of the me-too movement. On the other hand, I think that male privilege and male abuse of women including for sexual favors is being resisted, and that's a good thing. Less family break-ups and greater commitment to ethical treatment of children seems good as well, although the nuclear family of the 1950s is and always was an unhealthy aberration and not historical at all. So the right balance still evades us, and will develop in time, I think. Porn is boring and is always a bad substitute for real sex and real love. Our lonely society deprives people of this, and so people use the substitutes instead, which do not satisfy. I suppose it helps some of us keep our sexual imagination and potency alive for when it might come in handy, or might lead to decadent and destructive behavior, depending on the person and your views on this subject. The racist, sexist abusive porn that brower mentions is of course destructive.

[nguyenivy]

(11-11-2021, 02:47 AM)galaxy Wrote:

(02-19-2019, 11:35 AM)David Horn Wrote:

Bill the Piper Wrote:

Eric the Green Wrote:I don't think you advocate culture-war religious-right efforts, but I agree with the Left of course on such issues as gay rights and government-sponsored religion in public places. Abortion is an issue that can be compromised, but that doesn't seem to be possible just now.

I could just say that I'd like to see the effects of sexual revolution reversed to some degree. The entertainment industry in particular needs to be purged. To some extent, reversing the sexual revolution requires the dominant ethos of individualism (which regards selfish pursuit of happiness as the goal of life) to die off, and new ethos of communitarianism to replace it. Parents staying together for their child's sake, even if they no longer get the thrills in bed. Like it was with the GIs and previous generations.

I have to agree with much of this.  The sexual revolution had far too many excesses to remain dominant in a less hyper-individualist society.  Communalism is returning and some degree of puritanical ethos will return with it.

I'm not sure what it looks like from your "age location in history" (or whatever S+H's exact term was), but I can tell you that to me (born 2001) it certainly looks like there is a "new sexual conservatism" emerging in recent years, especially since 2017. It is coming from younger people and from the political left, with the most enthusiastic supporters of it being the same age group as the "enforcers" of the new Millennial values consensus (those born 1988-1996). It is generally perceived, even by those who oppose it, as a further sexual liberalization, despite actually being the opposite.

One example I like to use is this:

In 1984, the federal government pressured states to raise their drinking ages to 21 by withholding highway funding from states with ages below 21.
Before then, there was wide variation of drinking ages, but all were 18, 19, 20, or 21.
Right now, a similar situation exists with the age of sexual consent. Depending on the state, it is either 16, 17, or 18 (plus some complications and technicalities).
It is conceivable that the federal government could, if there was a base of support for it, take a similar action with the age of consent, and use some kind of withheld funding to pressure states to raise their age to 18.

Now, you tell me:

Which party would have been more likely to do something like this in, say, 2002?
And which party would be more likely to do it now?

And that's the new left-wing sexual conservatism.


You also see the same "position-switch" happening with pornography right now, and you can really see the difference between turnings with that one. There is almost no religious rhetoric left in the anti-pornography movement. Today it's all about exploitation of the performers, and potential psychological harm, like addiction or distorted and unrealistic worldviews and expectations. No one is talking about how "it's morally wrong, separates people from [insert your higher power of choice here], goes against [his/her/its/their] creation, contributes to "depravity," turns the frogs gay" and so on. It's not moralistic anymore, it's pragmatic. If that's not a good example of a 2T/3T vs. 4T/1T opposition, then I don't know what is.

Raising age of consent? I would guess it would be more likely to be pushed by Republicans during the 1990s/2000s and Democrats nowadays in the 2020s, since last decade. However there could be a push for raising it from both parties but for different reasons due to different priorities & values (or different ways of enforcement of values if they're the same values).

[JasonBlack]

imo, no. The boomers are way more liberal than the Puritans (the idealist elders during their crisis) ever were.

[Tim Randal Walker]

If we are lucky, this 4T might play out as one of the milder ones that were listed in a paleo 4T thread. (As I recall, the number listed was only a handful).

However.... Things could still go very badly. I'm thinking of a direct confrontation between NATO troops and Russian forces, or a war over Taiwan. These sort of issues raise the possibility of nuclear Armageddon.

If things go well, and we look back from a new 1T, I doubt we will regard this 4T as very similar to the Glorious Revolution. For example, I don't recall a global pandemic similar to Covid during that 4T.

[pbrower2a]

We do not have:

1. a struggle for national independence followed by institutional chaos (Revolutionary War and the struggle to establish Constitutional government).

2. a struggle between regions based on disparate values in economics and general valuation of people.

3. an apocalyptic war between us and powers intent on conquering the world in the establishment of a world-wide slave system for those 'privileged' enough to not be exterminated among the defeated.

We solved the problem of a distant king trying to micromanage things from across an ocean. Slavery is kaputt in America once and for all. Genocide is widely recognized as an abomination.