Porn started with Playboy magazine in 1953 prior to that Stag magazine had sexual content, burlesque but no nudity. Stag began publishing in 1937. Circa 1963 10 years after Playboy began this country as well as the entirety of the West was thoroughly patriarchal. There were few women in the workplace and rare as a Unicorn was a women boss. Women always wore dresses never pants in public. Most men could expect to be married by 25. Playboy wasn’t being bought and viewed by desperate incels but by married men. So you have things backwards first ban porn and good results will follow. Undoing all the damage to society from toxic feminism would of course be necessary as well. A difficult task in a democracy where women vote.
The crisis of masculinity
- Thread starter Viktor Zeegelaar
- Start date
TheOnceAndFutureKing
Woodpecker
Yeah but the consumption of porn then was much less compared to now where we have all the tube sites as well as stuff like Onlyfans. It doesn't help either how high womens standards have gotten now that their needs are met by the government, so the average guy just can't compete if he wants a quality woman since he doesn't meet the looks standards that women keep raising.
There is a political party that wants to restore America back to when it was better. It also wants to solve many of the problems that Americans (especially men) are facing. If they win and actually stick to their party principles, America will have a bright future. Some of their ideas include banning porn, getting the US govt. out of gambling, banning abortion, cutting welfare, and strengthening marriage laws.
www.thegospelcoalition.org
What You Should Know About the 2020 Constitution Party Platform
Here is what you should know about the political party whose goal is to “restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.”
Never the less banning all porn now would be a giant step in the right direction. What do you think those men from that era prior to getting married were doing? Pre marital sex was extremely rare. Some may have masturbated but I believe many would not have. Porn and masturbation weaken a man. It is best avoided. What you have to understand is that the legalization of porn and it’s proliferation has contributed to the current situation.
TheOnceAndFutureKing
Woodpecker
Taking away porn isn't going to make those men more desirable as long as women are free to be promiscuous with Chads. If not a collapse then a serious restructuring(mainly taking away women's rights) is the only way to balance out the dating market so men don't have to turn to porn/masturbation to fill the void of women.
I agree about women’s rights and of course just taking away porn may not solve the problem of getting a woman for many men. But not inflaming their lusts through porn will strengthen them. Sex is not a necessity. Masturbation is a sin, it also takes away the drive to actually try to get a woman. There is no redeeming value to porn whatsoever. It serves no useful purpose even for a man leading a completely secular life devoid of religion.
Porn is only one issue. There are other easy fixes. Making child support voluntary and/or having the kid go to the parent that matches their sex (ex. boys go to the fathers and girls to the mothers) if the couple breaks up and the other parent pays child support if they have an unequal amount of kids would take away the incentive for women to try to get pregnant from wealthy men they don't love. It would greatly reduce divorce rape as well. Also, caps on child support would help.
Restricting abortion to emergency only or banning it would reduce non-marital sex as well.
Reducing immigration, especially of unmarried men, would also help.
The USA is going to have a lot more herbivore men if things don't change. We see this in Japan. If a man decides to live a semi-hermit lifestyle and focus on hobbies and he is not materialistic, he can live pretty well on a minimum wage job and very well if he has a middle-class job (except for certain cities like NYC and San Francisco). If men give up on dating (and hopefully don't turn homosexual) and they don't care about family pressure (which is less common as parents care less and less about their kids), they can have an easy lifestyle.
We will see more single dog men to match single cat women. I have an uncle that is a 'dog man' and he seems content.
I am not advocating this. However, it is better to be a herbivore dog man (if you have decent hobbies) than to be married to a fat and rude woman that nags you a lot and that you fear will divorce rape you if you don't behave well and also make enough money to meet her 'needs.' Josh Hawley likely understands this but can't express everything fully because he fears making women angry (as mentioned before-politicians can only safely blame men).
TheOnceAndFutureKing
Woodpecker
This is pretty much verbatim what I've been saying. One thing thats interesting about the herbivore crisis is that the Japanese government much like the left in the west are aware of the crisis of low fertility rates, but their only solution is increased immigration which is ironic since the reason why immigrants from the third world, particularly Islamic countries, have such a high fertility rate is because their women have severely limited rights.
TheOnceAndFutureKing
Woodpecker
I agree porn has no place, if guys can't get married then it would be better if they channeled their energy into healthier outlets.
The uncomfortable reality that one will come to is because (regardless of how much understanding we can have or testosterone can give is), the globalists in a weird way are right: there are too many people. I hate to say this but it's quite obvious that with this many people created in a dysgenic society of welfare and medical innovation, propaganda and influence to overcome the remainder of society was inevitable. Trust me, I hate this reality, but I cannot think where I err here in realizing it.
And I'd add the all out promotion of it. It's pushed, it's promoted, if you don't watch it you're a weirdo. And if you see what they're interjecting into porn now, incest, gay stuff inbetween the straight stuff, the most vulgar and filthy ads possible, it's a cest pool of filth, always has been but has absolutely been increasingly so, guided from above.
Good point, if all limits are cancelled there are no rules anymore and chaos ensues. That was the whole point about rules in the sexual marketplace, ensuring a place for everyone, having stability and having a situation where overall people were most happy and excesses of our fallen nature were restrained and avoided. I'm not too big on the whole MGTOW stuff, but they've got a point that at some point you've got to decide whether you want to play on a broken field, with all the rules set against you, with major risks, against an enemy that's attacking you from every side. I understand the position that men in modern day, especially if their pool of prospects are secular women, choose to opt out, as there are way more costs than benefits to be with a secular women nowadays, and marriage is a sword of Damocles sweeping above your head permanently. Moreover, I'm not even talking about raising children which is a topic in itself with regard to a secular society that is set to destroy individuals and to brainwash them from the start of their life.
It might also be because they are more focused on wanting to marry young and have as many kids as they can, whether they are poor or not. A lot of Americans (especially the middle class) think they can't afford 1 kid when the husband is pulling in $40,000 a year. 'Idiocracy' showed this perfectly. Poorer Americans are not as careful at planning but often use abortion. Many Muslims will not use abortion. They have faith that God will take care of things. Some Christians still believe this, but fewer than in the past.
Limited rights is a factor, but I think materialism is a bigger factor (they often go hand in hand). As people get wealthier, birth rates tend to fall and this is true even in many Islamic nations. It is actually the opposite of what one would expect would happen. As health care improves, pregnancy is less risky and more children survive birth. More money means people can feed more kids. However, birth rates fall because people demand more.
Immigration doesn't seem like it is needed though. Japan has a high population density. I don't get why people would be worse off if the population dropped 80%. It would mean housing and food prices would drop, people wouldn't need to be pushed onto subways in Tokyo, and Japan could become a food exporter. I have never been on a subway or airplane and felt that I would be happier if only it were even more crowded.
Crowded cities (made worse by mass immigration) tend to reduce birth rates as well. I read that in cities, children are considered a burden as they take resources but they don't provide any benefit (especially in countries with strict child labor laws). In farms, the kids still need to eat, but they also help on the farm. Mass immigration may also reduce birth rates among the native population and make native men feel even more hopeless.
No, but taking away porn will snatch them out of their passivity and apathy and they would get busy doing what men have done throughout history - restructuring society.
Parasites would be worse off in debt laden systems, yes these include the welfare types, pensioners, and old people. That's why they bring the new blood in, to work for the existing parasite/entitlement voters.
Otherwise, of course, you are right.
Welfare could easily be reduced to barracks housing and soup kitchens with work requirements for those able to work. This welfare would be very affordable to provide and is quite similar to welfare in the 19th century. I think most people on welfare don't really need to be.
Parasites need to be forced to get off welfare. Taking away monetary payments would likely get most of the lazy ones off the system.
Here's some observation that I noticed. Even self-described "masculine" men in America I would say are spiritually weak. I would say that a large percentage of such men, who identify as "alphas", act as womanizers. I would make a claim that these men are mentally impotent. If for example, he slept with several dozens women, but he doesn't have children from any of them, then he is a cuck. Some men have health problems, so they are physically impotent, but this category of described men are mentally impotent. One of my neighbors was a man like that. He had many different prostitutes come to his apartment, but he eventually died to a drug overdose, without any family or children.
If a man has access to women, but he cannot produce children, then he is defined as impotent, I don't care what is the reason why he can't.
If a man has access to women, but he cannot produce children, then he is defined as impotent, I don't care what is the reason why he can't.
I had to look up the sin he is expected to apologize for. He does a pretty fair accent. I can't believe Tom Hank's son managed to remember that he has cajones and doesn't need to bend over and take it from the SJWs. Maybe in this case, the son needs to pass on his wisdom to his father. Simple common sense that many people, especially many whites that grew up in liberal areas, forget. I like his reference to snowboarding.
I'm surprised that you see restrictions as a solution. Since when are we expecting the state to do good?
Even in Bible when Israel decided they wanted a king, God told them that nothing good will come out of it.
State restriction is never a solution because you can't pump good water from the poisoned well
I'm sad to say that in this world the good of having so may humans born strains ecology or induces more evil leaders to (over time) try to cull the herd. It takes a long time to get there, but I've been trying to make this point of the board for over a year now. High numbers of men in safety and without war for a long time (medical innovation, no real plagues, no real famines) is ultimately an ecological disaster if you want higher quality women. It is a complicated situation due to the loss of religion in the west over that time as well, but that is also what happens when you get increasing numbers of (absolute numbers) of average and below average people. I know this sounds like an elitist position but it's actually, quite clearly the case. Let me prove it another way - what's the strategy for increasing numbers of men that have trouble competing with other men? Things like lying to women and feminism, white knighting politically, etc.