from Disfigured Praise blog, originally titled “How Women Destroy Civilization”
Sex and Culture by J. D. Unwin is a remarkable book. The book analyzes 80 primitive cultures (anthropology) and a number of past empires (history) and finds that, without exception, the level of advancement or decline of all cultures is directly tied to the level of regulation of female sexuality. His historical examples include the Sumerians, Babylonians, Athenians, Romans, Teutons, and Anglo-Saxons (600s – 900s), and English (1500s – 1900s). In every example, these cultures began to rise when women were required to be virgins at marriage and to be monogamous for life. All of these cultures began to decline when women were given rights, were not required to be virgins at marriage, when divorce was common, and marriage was in decline.
100% of societies that loosened constraints on female sexuality, opening Pandora’s box quickly degenerated and fell apart. Natural female instincts are destructive to civilization as the following happens :
▪ 20% of men enjoy 80% of female sexuality as the Pareto Principle returns (this fact also explains why harems are so prevalent in human societies cross-culturally and throughout history)
▪ A large population of disgruntled, sexually disenfranchised men forms
▪ Humanity returns to a zoistic level of development as men stop making investments in society
▪ Zoistic societies display the lowest amount of mental and social energy, therefore the civilization dies
Huxley put it like this:
“All human societies are in one or another of four cultural conditions: zoistic, manistic, deistic, rationalistic. Of these societies the zoistic displays the least amount of mental and social energy, the rationalistic the most. Investigation shows that the societies exhibiting the least amount of energy are those where pre-nuptial continence is not imposed and where the opportunities for sexual indulgence after marriage are greatest. The cultural condition of a society rises in exact proportion as it imposes pre-nuptial and post-nuptial restraints upon sexual opportunity.“
Nikola Tesla knew what was coming as a result of this insanity.
“Our civilization will sink to a state like that which is found among the bees, ants and other insects–a state wherein the male is ruthlessly killed off. In this matriarchal empire which will be established the female rules. As the female predominates, the males are at her mercy. The male is considered important only as a factor in the general scheme of the continuity of life. The tendency of women to push aside man, supplanting the old spirit of cooperation with him in all the affairs of life, is very disappointing to me. Woman’s independence and her cleverness in obtaining what she wants in the business world is breaking down man’s spirit of independence. The old fire he once experienced at being able to achieve something that would compel and hold a woman’s devotion is turning to ashes. Women don’t seem to want that sort of thing to-day. They appear to want to control and govern. They want man to look up to them, instead of their looking up to him.”
After studying cultures as diverse as the Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, and dozens of other groups Dr. Unwin found a 100% perfect correlation between the practice of heterosexual fidelity and cultural development. As Unwin wrote, across 5,000 years of history he found absolutely no exception his rule:
“These societies lived in different geographical environments; they belonged to different racial stocks; but the history of their marriage customs is the same. In the beginning each society had the same ideas in regard to sexual regulations. Then the same struggles took place; the same sentiments were expressed; the same changes were made; the same results ensued. Each society reduced its sexual opportunity to a minimum and displaying great social energy, flourished greatly. Then it extended its sexual opportunity; its energy decreased, and faded away. The one outstanding feature of the whole story is its unrelieved monotony.Without exception, once restrictions on sexuality are lifted, especially female sexuality, a society destroys itself from within, and is later conquered from without. When not focusing mental and physical energy on buliding strong families, members of a culture lose the impetus for upkeep and innovation.”
Author Daniel Janosik puts Unwin’s findings this way:
“If the British anthropologist J. D. Unwin is correct in his assessment of society, this present generation in the Western world may be the last one. He found that when strict heterosexual monogamy was practiced, the society attained its greatest cultural energy, especially in the arts, sciences and technology. But as people rebelled against the prohibitions placed upon them and demanded more sexual opportunities, there was a consequent loss of their creative energy, which resulted in the decline and eventual destruction of the civilization. Remarkably, he did not find any exception to this trend.”
The fact the world’s three major religions, which date back to the Bronze Age have been structured around the ideals of monogamy and sexual restraint for thousands of years should tell us something about tampering with the set and frame of civilization, then calling the resulting degeneracy “progress.”
“Unwin concluded that the fabric that holds a society together is sexual in nature. When life–long heterosexual monogamous relationship is practiced, the focus is on the nurture of the family and energy is expended to protect, plan for, and build up the individual family unit. This extends to the entire society and produces a strong society focused on preserving the strength of the family. However, he found that when sexual opportunities opened the door to pre–marital, post–marital, and homosexual relationships, the social energy always dissipated as the individual focused more on self–gratification rather than societal good.”
Philip Yancey has this to say about it :
Unwin had no Christian convictions and applied no moral judgment: “I offer no opinion about rightness or wrongness.” Nevertheless, he had to conclude, “In human records there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence.”
“The evidence is that in the past a class has risen to a position of political dominance because of its great energy and that at the period of its rising, its sexual regulations have always been strict. It has retained its energy and dominated the society so long as its sexual regulations have demanded both pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence. … I know of no exceptions to these rules”.
Unwin’s research identified this attitude as a salient opinion in each of the preceding societies as well:
“…convinced that the cultural process is a progressive development and that our own culture is the most developed of all cultures, we assume that every change in our cultural condition is evidence of a higher cultural development.”
Bob Burkett over at ETHIKA POLITIKA has an article on him and notes Unwin is by no means alone in his assessment :
“Unwin is not alone in reaching many of the conclusions I expanded upon here; a number of respectable academics throughout history have complemented his work in various ways.
Margaret Mead, for example, was a key academic who backed the Sexual Revolution and published a book highlighting the supposedly consequence-free world of sexual liberation in “Coming of Age in Samoa” (a book in which participants in the ethnographic study later admitted to lying to Mead for fun, thus rendering her utopian world of sexual libertinism unrealistic.) Regardless of her support of the Sexual Revolution, Mead acknowledged that the central role for a successful society was to “define appropriate roles for men.”
In a largely monogamous society, men could choose to marry or remain celibate. Those men who married become committed husbands, providing the greatest opportunity for raising well-adjusted children, who in turn perpetuate societal growth.
Economist Joseph Schumpeter similarly equated the success of capitalism to love of the family, for without family the male would have less incentive to sacrifice and save money out of love for his wife and children, and would probably spend his money on more pleasurable endeavors.
