Comments on: Myth of Morality, S-E-X – Part 1

By: Jack

Jack — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 21:50:07 +0000

Lots of material here. Consider the Victorian era, particularly Victorian morality. So prude was the English citizenry during this time, that meat which was once termed "breast" and "thigh" was renamed to white and dark meat to avoid any suggestion of impropriety. They even put skirts around those sexually suggestive table and chair-legs! This is evidence--stark and irrefutable--that morality underwent a wholesale sea-change over this relatively short period of time from the 1830's to around 1900. A more likely rationale for this period is that children commonly rebel against the mores of their parents. What is stylish to one generation is passe to the next. The victorian era was a rebellion against the more licentious Georgian era. I'm not aware of any commonly known or accepted birth-control devices during the Victorian Era. Don't you think it's possible that a much more likely possibility for the lowered birth-rate during the 1800 to 1900 than jerry-rigged prophylactics, was a genuine tightening-up of moral standards? Ankle-length skirts, bonnets, and ridid supervision of unwed daughters was the norm.

By: Hankering for History

Hankering for History — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:47:46 +0000

In reply to fakename2.

Haha you should meet my father…one of Britney Spears’ least favorite fans….

By: spencercourt

spencercourt — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 17:04:14 +0000

While I can’t venture any hypothesis on why “morality” declined, I do believe that there should be little doubt about it’s origin: the fact that for centuries women were property. Property of their parents and then property of their husbands.

And that property needed to be in “mint” condition before marriage or it lost its value. I am not aware that there was a any similar value on *men” being chaste. Because they were not property. So the “decline” in “morality” was a revolutionary event because now women controlled their own bodies.

By: fakename2

fakename2 — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 14:22:56 +0000

What a fascinating treatment of the subject, and I recommend that you make this an (eventual) Master’s Thesis. It is so true that prohibitions and warnings have never worked. But what they do give is the gift of feeling guilty for the rest of your life for having violated them.
I look forward to Part 2. Because I think what really changed–which you touched on in this post–is the availability of the pill. For the first time, this led to true freedom for women. Women suddenly had control, and the freedom to make their own decisions without fear. And just look what that unleashed 🙂 It’s hard to believe that the first oral contraceptive for women went on sale in 1960. (Envoid 10). The Pill unleashed a lot of negative things…like Britney Spears. I’m hoping that will settle down.

By: standup2p

standup2p — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 13:12:40 +0000

I believe there were more contributing factors:
In a world of labor from dark to dark with no outside entertainment sex was one of the sole extracurricular activities available.
In a small abode it is very obvious when mommy & daddy are having sex; hence natural and intriguing.
in re premarital sex in an agrarian society- you hit the nail on the head, to enter into a barren marriage would be economic suicide.

By: standup2p

standup2p — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 12:47:03 +0000

Thank you