You can listen to Archbishop Fulton Sheen, a Catholic, discussing the society of his time (the 1950s) to get an idea of how non-degenerate it was - of course to our eyes it looks like paradise in comparison (well, kinda), but still, a society in complete disarray, which incidentally has led to the full on meltdown of the 60s. Kids don't suddenly become revolutionaries just because subversive forces tell them to - that's a caricature akin to those anti-weed ads where an exemplary student smokes one joint and becomes a complete burnout.No, Rheiner's point is concise and on target. Germany in the 1930s was for more modern than in the 1920s, and orders of magnitude less degenerate. It became a prosperous society built on a foundation of family, labor and nation, and technology enabled it.
Technology is just a tool that can be used to great benefit for the public, or to spread degeneracy and control it. We had TV, movies and magazines in the 1950s, but it was only until the morality code was broken in the 1960s that they became a tool for degeneracy. The content before that was largely positive.
In any case, what I have advanced are philosophical propositions about the nature of media, not statements about a period of history in itself. I am way less interested in that. But since we're on historical anecdotes, what you said proved my point exactly: 'the morality code was broken' - meaning, there was tight regulation to not allow it as a tool for degeneracy. Once the code was broken, it fulfilled its inherent bias - which is not to promote sexual deviancy as such (at least not primarily and most prominently), just low-brow, lowest common denominator, vulgarity.