FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > This scientist has proven swinging is morally wrong
This scientist has proven swinging is morally wrong
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Okay, I've read an objectively true article, the science is in and it's undeniable. It explains how sexually permissive societies always fail ... here's and excerpt
"...among the 86 different societies he studied, he not only found monogamy to be correlated with a society's strength, but came to the sobering conclusion that
"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."
In other words, once a society loosened its sexual mores and abandoned monogamy, it began to degenerate and would eventually dissipate away. So much for 'permissive' sexual attitudes being "progressive"; the complete opposite of the sexual regression described by Unwin in his research on his study of a society's regression."
My question to you is, now you've seen the evidence will you stop your dengerate ways and save our society? Or will you be selfish and crash 500 years of progress to satisfy your urges? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Okay, I've read an objectively true article, the science is in and it's undeniable. It explains how sexually permissive societies always fail ... here's and excerpt
"...among the 86 different societies he studied, he not only found monogamy to be correlated with a society's strength, but came to the sobering conclusion that
"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."
In other words, once a society loosened its sexual mores and abandoned monogamy, it began to degenerate and would eventually dissipate away. So much for 'permissive' sexual attitudes being "progressive"; the complete opposite of the sexual regression described by Unwin in his research on his study of a society's regression."
My question to you is, now you've seen the evidence will you stop your dengerate ways and save our society? Or will you be selfish and crash 500 years of progress to satisfy your urges? "
So what are YOU doing on here then???? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Is he basing it all on the Roman Empire?
86 different societies "
So in the 6500 years that humans have established civilisations, 86 have gone corrupt cause of shagging! I think there maybe 1000's that haven't that he's missed.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Okay, I've read an objectively true article, the science is in and it's undeniable. It explains how sexually permissive societies always fail ... here's and excerpt
"...among the 86 different societies he studied, he not only found monogamy to be correlated with a society's strength, but came to the sobering conclusion that
"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."
In other words, once a society loosened its sexual mores and abandoned monogamy, it began to degenerate and would eventually dissipate away. So much for 'permissive' sexual attitudes being "progressive"; the complete opposite of the sexual regression described by Unwin in his research on his study of a society's regression."
My question to you is, now you've seen the evidence will you stop your dengerate ways and save our society? Or will you be selfish and crash 500 years of progress to satisfy your urges?
So what are YOU doing on here then????"
Bringing enlightenment |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Is it generalisable? Is it replicable? Did the study identify its limitations and weaknesses, if so what were they? if it didn't then the study has lost massive credibility.
You have posted the name of the study, or a Link for it, so I'm asking here. Not that I'd bother to go read it if you did, but hey that's me  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *emini ManMan
over a year ago
There and to the left a bit |
Was it conducted by a religious think tank by any chance? And would be interesting to know which societies these studies were based on?
Either way it won't change my ways - we're a minority of society as a whole and even if these studies were true unlikely to have any overall effect. I also suspect there are just as scientific studies that prove there's no effect either way  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Okay, I've read an objectively true article, the science is in and it's undeniable. It explains how sexually permissive societies always fail ... here's and excerpt
"...among the 86 different societies he studied, he not only found monogamy to be correlated with a society's strength, but came to the sobering conclusion that
"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."
In other words, once a society loosened its sexual mores and abandoned monogamy, it began to degenerate and would eventually dissipate away. So much for 'permissive' sexual attitudes being "progressive"; the complete opposite of the sexual regression described by Unwin in his research on his study of a society's regression."
My question to you is, now you've seen the evidence will you stop your dengerate ways and save our society? Or will you be selfish and crash 500 years of progress to satisfy your urges?
So what are YOU doing on here then????
Bringing enlightenment "
yay..
thank fuck for that.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The ancient records of the Jews known as the OLd testament, their accounts of the nations around them brightly witness to this fact of decline in nations |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Is it generalisable? Is it replicable? Did the study identify its limitations and weaknesses, if so what were they? if it didn't then the study has lost massive credibility.
You have posted the name of the study, or a Link for it, so I'm asking here. Not that I'd bother to go read it if you did, but hey that's me "
That's meant to be "you haven't", I know it's obvious but to some it wouldn't be. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Is it generalisable? Is it replicable? Did the study identify its limitations and weaknesses, if so what were they? if it didn't then the study has lost massive credibility.
You have posted the name of the study, or a Link for it, so I'm asking here. Not that I'd bother to go read it if you did, but hey that's me "
Can't post links, I'd message the article but like you say you won't read it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Okay, I've read an objectively true article, the science is in and it's undeniable. It explains how sexually permissive societies always fail ... here's and excerpt
"...among the 86 different societies he studied, he not only found monogamy to be correlated with a society's strength, but came to the sobering conclusion that
"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."
In other words, once a society loosened its sexual mores and abandoned monogamy, it began to degenerate and would eventually dissipate away. So much for 'permissive' sexual attitudes being "progressive"; the complete opposite of the sexual regression described by Unwin in his research on his study of a society's regression."
My question to you is, now you've seen the evidence will you stop your dengerate ways and save our society? Or will you be selfish and crash 500 years of progress to satisfy your urges? "
Fuck it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Science cannot prove love !
This scientist clearly has it wrong
Just watch any zoo program on TV and watch the animals fuck each other ! Very few are monogamous !
Most monkeys are swingers , literally and sexually |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *emini ManMan
over a year ago
There and to the left a bit |
"Who did the study?
J.d.unwin "
So this study is from sometime before 1936 (which is when he died) at a time when society was not as permissive of sexuality as it is now? I therefore give it as much credence as I would talk of men from Mars landing in my garden tomorrow morning!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Okay, I've read an objectively true article, the science is in and it's undeniable. It explains how sexually permissive societies always fail ... here's and excerpt
"...among the 86 different societies he studied, he not only found monogamy to be correlated with a society's strength, but came to the sobering conclusion that
"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."
In other words, once a society loosened its sexual mores and abandoned monogamy, it began to degenerate and would eventually dissipate away. So much for 'permissive' sexual attitudes being "progressive"; the complete opposite of the sexual regression described by Unwin in his research on his study of a society's regression."
My question to you is, now you've seen the evidence will you stop your dengerate ways and save our society? Or will you be selfish and crash 500 years of progress to satisfy your urges? "
I choose selfish |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Who did the study?
J.d.unwin
So this study is from sometime before 1936 (which is when he died) at a time when society was not as permissive of sexuality as it is now? I therefore give it as much credence as I would talk of men from Mars landing in my garden tomorrow morning!! "
I'll add you to the list of people to blame
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
So the OP hasn't actually read the book, he's read the write up from someone else. Did you realise his book was published in 1934, the study was a research in to previous societies: Romans, Anglo Saxons, Greeks etc... I really don't think his research would be applied in the same manner today. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"So the OP hasn't actually read the book, he's read the write up from someone else. Did you realise his book was published in 1934, the study was a research in to previous societies: Romans, Anglo Saxons, Greeks etc... I really don't think his research would be applied in the same manner today. "
Everyone's so defensive!
I said I read the article, mostly the headline, jeez |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *emini ManMan
over a year ago
There and to the left a bit |
"Who did the study?
J.d.unwin
So this study is from sometime before 1936 (which is when he died) at a time when society was not as permissive of sexuality as it is now? I therefore give it as much credence as I would talk of men from Mars landing in my garden tomorrow morning!!
I'll add you to the list of people to blame
"
Oh I have no doubt I'll be one of the first against the wall |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Who did the study?
J.d.unwin
So this study is from sometime before 1936 (which is when he died) at a time when society was not as permissive of sexuality as it is now? I therefore give it as much credence as I would talk of men from Mars landing in my garden tomorrow morning!!
I'll add you to the list of people to blame
"
Blame for what?
is it correct that the study is from before 1936 that you are referring to? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Who did the study?
J.d.unwin
So this study is from sometime before 1936 (which is when he died) at a time when society was not as permissive of sexuality as it is now? I therefore give it as much credence as I would talk of men from Mars landing in my garden tomorrow morning!!
I'll add you to the list of people to blame
Blame for what?
is it correct that the study is from before 1936 that you are referring to?"
What's the date got to do with anything? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Anthropology is a very soft science but the research is interesting to read.
If you look into some of the early research and the people who conducted it you would know to be a bit sceptical of the conclusions they make from their observations. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So the OP hasn't actually read the book, he's read the write up from someone else. Did you realise his book was published in 1934, the study was a research in to previous societies: Romans, Anglo Saxons, Greeks etc... I really don't think his research would be applied in the same manner today.
Everyone's so defensive!
I said I read the article, mostly the headline, jeez"
Not defensive at all. Just a thread I'm slightly interested in, or was, as it was based around research. But upon reading it I find out its historical research to which I have no interest in. I was merely posting the facts you missed out |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Who did the study?
J.d.unwin
So this study is from sometime before 1936 (which is when he died) at a time when society was not as permissive of sexuality as it is now? I therefore give it as much credence as I would talk of men from Mars landing in my garden tomorrow morning!!
I'll add you to the list of people to blame
Blame for what?
is it correct that the study is from before 1936 that you are referring to?
What's the date got to do with anything? "
A lot |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"So the OP hasn't actually read the book, he's read the write up from someone else. Did you realise his book was published in 1934, the study was a research in to previous societies: Romans, Anglo Saxons, Greeks etc... I really don't think his research would be applied in the same manner today.
Everyone's so defensive!
I said I read the article, mostly the headline, jeez
Not defensive at all. Just a thread I'm slightly interested in, or was, as it was based around research. But upon reading it I find out its historical research to which I have no interest in. I was merely posting the facts you missed out "
But history happened |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Who did the study?
J.d.unwin
So this study is from sometime before 1936 (which is when he died) at a time when society was not as permissive of sexuality as it is now? I therefore give it as much credence as I would talk of men from Mars landing in my garden tomorrow morning!!
I'll add you to the list of people to blame
Blame for what?
is it correct that the study is from before 1936 that you are referring to?
What's the date got to do with anything? "
relevance springs to mind for a start..
your talking about a time when it was ok for men to knock their wives about, society has moved on somewhat thankfully ..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"One paper by one author does not a proof make.
Do you even science?
No, I don't even science, it's a historical observation! Do you even history?
You said it was scientific evidence "
I wouldn't listen to what I say |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Hereford |
"One paper by one author does not a proof make.
Do you even science?
No, I don't even science, it's a historical observation! Do you even history?"
I know that sociology is possibly one of the "lesser" of the sciences, but it still is one, apparently. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"One paper by one author does not a proof make.
Do you even science?
No, I don't even science, it's a historical observation! Do you even history?
I know that sociology is possibly one of the "lesser" of the sciences, but it still is one, apparently. "
It's more of a hobby I think, like stamp collecting |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Who did the study?
J.d.unwin
So this study is from sometime before 1936 (which is when he died) at a time when society was not as permissive of sexuality as it is now? I therefore give it as much credence as I would talk of men from Mars landing in my garden tomorrow morning!!
I'll add you to the list of people to blame
Blame for what?
is it correct that the study is from before 1936 that you are referring to?
What's the date got to do with anything?
relevance springs to mind for a start..
your talking about a time when it was ok for men to knock their wives about, society has moved on somewhat thankfully ..
"
In Christian lands it was never acceptable for men to knock their wives about...
"Husbands love your wives and be servants to both them and your children...Teaching of Apostle Paul....
......
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"When we're these societies and how did the not being monogamous bring them down?
"
Or was non monogamy a result of general decline rather than its cause. Or, may the words wither on my lips, is it just people with a moral agenda saying its the cause of the decline of civilizations a bit like that guy who said floods were the fault of homosexuals. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *arlo82Couple
over a year ago
the gym and random places |
To be fair before the Christian crusades monogamy didn't really exist. Mormons manage poly relationships as do many other cultures. I fail to see the link between fuckin one person your whole life or society collapsing? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *arlo82Couple
over a year ago
the gym and random places |
" I'm guessing swingers make up less than 1% of society, so the 99% will keep us in check.
But they're all shagging around too!  "
And they hurt people while doing so! Not like us |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Firstly, I'd need to read the full theory and evidence, published in a credible scientific journal, before perceiving that I've got an understanding of the proposition.
Secondly, whilst science may propose theories and provide evidence, it doesn't really 'prove' such concepts as you've covered op.
Humans, including other hominids that we've inter-bred with, have undergone hundreds of thousands of years where our behaviour and societal norms have varied. The interbreeding between homo sapiens and Neanderthals is very recent and Cro-Magnon humans are amongst species that likely interbred with others. We don't have incredible detailed records of the last 200,000 or 300,000 years, during which these changes occurred and yet during this fairly short period of evolution we have undergone incredible development in many years. The development of agriculture, say up to 10,000 years ago, by many human cultures, helped to stabilise how people lived: they were better suited to staying put and manging their crops and animals, for example. We know this sort of detail but less about whether people were monogamous or played the field etc. Marriage is probably a very recent invention, I think, so it's feasible that much of the incredible growth of the human species has been whilst we've perhaps not been that monogamous.
Whilst cultures come and go and you may see correlation between some parts of their cultural norms, I'm guessing that these are largely correlations, rather than more concrete causative reasons.
But, I've not seen this so called evidence and research and just read the opening post. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"To be fair before the Christian crusades monogamy didn't really exist. Mormons manage poly relationships as do many other cultures. I fail to see the link between fuckin one person your whole life or society collapsing?
"
Monogamy prevailed were ever Christianity prevailed long before the crusades, the mormons today follow this practice also... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I’ve not read the whole thread but things only appear to be morally wrong when they break our own personal moral code.
Look in here for example - bareback sex? Many are outraged at how morally wrong it is.
Cheaters? Burn the witches!
But having casual sex with every Tom, Dick & Harry that takes my fancy? Ah that’s fine!
Watersports and drinking each other’s piss? Ah y’know I quite like that (*actually I don’t, I’m just using it as an example!  ) so that’s morally acceptable too despite probably the majority of society being sickened by the thought!
We always think OUR morals are right and anyone who does things that we can’t understand or don’t like (even without understanding that other person’s perspective) are the ones who are morally wrong!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I haven't seen the research and without extensive research and robust evidence it's just opinion.
Even if I believe every word that you have written it still suggests to me that it isn't having multiple partners that destroys a society but society's attitude to having more than one partner and using monogamy as the bench mark. It's the tutters and finger pointers that'd deny you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" I'm guessing swingers make up less than 1% of society, so the 99% will keep us in check."
.
Boom... We're not in a swinging society and I don't believe ever will be.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Junk 'science' for those deranged enough to believe in it.
Now if you had gone with breakdown of family unit, destruction of community, or financial inequality.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Okay, I've read an objectively true article, the science is in and it's undeniable. It explains how sexually permissive societies always fail ... here's and excerpt
"...among the 86 different societies he studied, he not only found monogamy to be correlated with a society's strength, but came to the sobering conclusion that
"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."
In other words, once a society loosened its sexual mores and abandoned monogamy, it began to degenerate and would eventually dissipate away. So much for 'permissive' sexual attitudes being "progressive"; the complete opposite of the sexual regression described by Unwin in his research on his study of a society's regression."
My question to you is, now you've seen the evidence will you stop your dengerate ways and save our society? Or will you be selfish and crash 500 years of progress to satisfy your urges? "
I'm guessing the scientist is on Fab and pissed because he's not getting any meets. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I don't need a scientist to tell me we are heading for mighty fall.We now live in a throw away society where everything is disposable.From mobile phones to relationships.An age of instant gratification,ignorance and selfishness etc etc...............
A scene from Titanic....
(Lookout)..... "Captain there's an iceberg straight ahead"
(Captain)......"No there isn't" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Is it generalisable? Is it replicable? Did the study identify its limitations and weaknesses, if so what were they? if it didn't then the study has lost massive credibility.
You have posted the name of the study, or a Link for it, so I'm asking here. Not that I'd bother to go read it if you did, but hey that's me "
I'd also like to know about his methods and how he established causation in his study, as there are lots of factors that can cause societies to fail. Did he do a randomised controlled trial and control for all possible other reasons a society might fail?
And where are the references? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Is it generalisable? Is it replicable? Did the study identify its limitations and weaknesses, if so what were they? if it didn't then the study has lost massive credibility.
You have posted the name of the study, or a Link for it, so I'm asking here. Not that I'd bother to go read it if you did, but hey that's me
I'd also like to know about his methods and how he established causation in his study, as there are lots of factors that can cause societies to fail. Did he do a randomised controlled trial and control for all possible other reasons a society might fail?
And where are the references?"
It's a book from the early 1930's, so not news or something to take seriously, as you have already guessed |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Tbh sexual behaviours that were labelled as 'reckless' or 'immoral', have always existed in every civilisation known on earth, past, present and future.
I personally think that a scientist who posits that the decline of any past societies is only due to sexual behaviours that did not fit the norms can be taken seriously.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There's about 22000 people online right now out of say 65milluin people in the UK?
Out of those 22000, if the forums are to be listened to, 20000 are single men of which 19995 are married and cheating.
Of the remaining 2000, 997 are fake profiles.
This leaves approximately 1003 people who are swingers complaining about fakes and time wasters.
I'm not sure society is in danger 
Legal notice: these facts are a rough guide. If you are a fake profile no offence was intended. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I haven't seen the research and without extensive research and robust evidence it's just opinion.
Even if I believe every word that you have written it still suggests to me that it isn't having multiple partners that destroys a society but society's attitude to having more than one partner and using monogamy as the bench mark. It's the tutters and finger pointers that'd deny you. "
I don't remember reading this thread. Or writing this post but I was just about to write much the same again
So I've bumped me up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
