Was Civilization Always Promiscuous? Duke Responds to Poster

By Selwyn Duke

Was society always as promiscuous as today?  The answer to this question should be obvious, yet there are people who would say yes.  One of them responded to my piece "Does Pro-life Now Mean Pro-libertinism?" saying that the idea of traditional values before the time of the sexual revolution is a myth.  The name he posted under (I assume it's his real name) is Robert Berger, and he wrote:

It would avoid a lot of problems if every one were sexually responsible and no one had sex before marriage. However, this is a totally unrealistic goal. What you call "traditional values" before the alleged sexual revolution is a chimera. It never existed.

Sexual promiscuity has been around from the very beginning, and illegitimacy has been very common for many centuries. While SOME people have been chaste and still are, the image of the 1950s as a wholesome era when everything was so orderly and moral is an illusion.

I'm not saying that promiscuity is a good thing, but you can't stop human nature. And the notion that pornography, sexually alluring advertisements and mildly bawdy television programs and films are to blame for our problems today is specious.

Pornography  has  existed  for  at  least  2,000  years, and  young  people  have  always  felt  their  urges  as [sic]  acted  on them.  Censorship  today  won't  make  any  one  more  virtuous.

Dear Mr. Berger,

C.S. Lewis once wrote a brilliant and captivating little book titled The Screwtape Letters, which is written from the point of view of a demon who was counseling an underling on how to destroy civilization.  One strategy he offered is the following (I'm paraphrasing): We must separate one generation from another [e.g., render later ones ignorant of the true history of earlier ones], so that the characteristic strengths of one generation cannot be used to correct the characteristic faults of the next.

Thus, while I don't know how old you are, if you're relatively young, I can well understand why you'd believe the incredible proposition you put forth.  However, what you've come to believe is so wrong and so destructive that I couldn't let it slide.

First, let me point out the grain of Truth in your post.  Sexual promiscuity and illegitimacy certainly are nothing new; they have existed not for centuries but millennia.  But there should be a qualifier here: They have existed in certain times and places for millennia.

As to this, you claim that widespread chastity before marriage is an unrealistic goal, but history belies this claim.  In many times and places -- I would in fact guess that in most -- the norm has been to refrain from sexual activity before marriage.  In these societies, there were strong social controls that encouraged this; meaning, traditions that governed behavior and often punishment for misbehavior.  Of course, in many of these cases people married very young, perhaps at ages 14 or 15.  But the point is that in these multitude of societies, it simply was not the case that people were running around en masse engaging in fornication.  It simply was not possible.

It's important to understand something about this.  In every society I know of, and I'll allow that there might be an exception of which I'm unaware (it would have been a short-lived one, I'm sure), sexuality has been governed by some standard.  It might not have been a Christian one; it might have been a Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian, or some Pagan standard, but it was not a laissez-faire atmosphere.  Even in civilizations infamous for having descended into true perversion, there were identifiable rules.  And many societies, recognizing the powerful force that is sexuality, saw fit to control it tightly and succeeded in doing so.

If you still doubt this, consider the following.  I used to know a WWII veteran who on more than one occasion spoke of his days as a wannabe Casanova.  Here is what he said about the prospects for being a swinger in “his day” (1940s to early 50s).  He said, and this is close to verbatim, “Back then, a girl would only go so far.  She might kiss you a bit or sleep with you [clothed – he actually meant sleep!], but that was it.”  Now, bear in mind that he wasn’t some fellow living in a Podunk town; rather, he was a good-looking, secular young man living in the cosmopolitan cities of New York and Miami.

Then, consider an email sent to me by a different reader.  It is a woman who wrote:

I graduated from high school in 1965.  At that time we did not have government school sex classes. Hard core porno was not easy to obtain. Hugh Heffner's Playboy magazine had not yet sunk to the level of Hustler . Actors on television still weren't shown in bed together.  Girls who got pregnant were kicked out of school. "Nice" girls, even if they were fornicating, didn't let anyone know . . . .

In the same vein, a woman close to me once put it very well (she said this about five years back): “Thirty-five years ago you knew who the bad girls were; now you know who the good girls are.”

I should also mention something often overlooked: The impact of venereal diseases and the absence of birth control measures like the pill.  For most of history, these diseases couldn't be cured and there was no form of birth control even as reliable as what we have today.  And if you don't think that the advanced symptoms of horrible afflictions such as syphilis and gonorrhea and the high probability of pregnancy were enough to scare many people straight (especially women), please see me.  I can offer you a great deal on the Brooklyn Bridge.

As for pornography, it is unbelievable that you would imply there is some kind of equivalence between today’s climate and that of the rest of history.  First, pornography has existed for thousands of years; however, it had been extremely uncommon.  Did it elude you that the printing press didn’t exist for most of that time and that without it not much of anything could be disseminated to the general population?  Moreover, even after the press' advent, such materials were not viewed very widely.

Even when I was growing up, things were different.  Video cassette recorders weren’t common yet, which means that people couldn’t run to a video store and pick up an “adult film”; there was no cable TV with porn channels; and a boy couldn’t exactly have a girlie magazine sent to his house.  Do you still want to equate this atmosphere with one in which children can access thousands of porn websites at the touch of a mouse?  Let’s not be silly.

Yet, again, many believe what you do.  It’s a tribute to the success of revisionist historians, people who, for example, disgorge one documentary after another about sex during the civil war, during the American Revolution, during medieval times, during this and during that.  They have caused individuals such as you to become detached from the past, and it’s an ominous development.  As George Orwell said, “He who controls the past, controls the present; he who controls the present, controls the future.” 

After all, no matter how effective a remedy is, people won’t try it if they think it has never worked before or couldn’t even be attempted, will they?  So, echoing George Santayana, he who forgets the remedies of the past is damned to be sick.

Thus do we have revisionist history, peddled by those who prefer illness masquerading as liberation to health mischaracterized as repression.

Think about it.

                Protected by Copyright

Comments

[Shaun]

Great post Mr. Duke, Thanks for the repsonse!

Shaun

[Robert Berger]

The problem with social conservatives today is that they have totally unrealistic goals and expectation about marriage and the family, and erribly unhelathy repressed attitudes to sex.
They want an America in which there is no sex before or outside of marriage, not even for adults who have never been married. And a nation where there is no abortion, no homosexuality, no pornography, or even tastful erotica, and not even something as normal and healhy as masturbation. No R-rated films, suggestive advertisements, etc, and government censorship of whatevr books, magazines, newspapers, films, television etc we watch and read, and the government in our bedrooms.
And they want every one to have big, contented families , watch G-rated films and TV and to live happily ever after. What a lovely fairy tale !
But there is absolutely no way to create a society like this. None has ever existed or ever will. And if the government tries to force America into this mold, the results will be catastrophic.

[Shaun]

Mr Berger,

I think you take the argument a bit too far. In my simple opinion someone who is socially conservative wants to push our national moral "slider" a little to the right. Lets look at some issues:

1. Sex before marriage- Is it beneficial to wait? Are there negative consequences for abstinence?

2. Abortion- Is Western civilization not dying and replacing our numbers with the third world? Is it not termination of life?

3- Homosexuality- What is the fruit of a homosexual lifestyle...disease, pain, higher drug usage rates..etc etc

I know you would disagree with some of this, however, my question for relativists or whatever position your coming from is: Where do you draw the line? Yes, I want a healthy moral society as defined by Biblical Law. I dont want a theocracy but I dont want a Sodom and Gemorrah. I dont want government intervention in these issues but I dont want government sponsorship of these issues either. There is a huge differnece! These social practices define us as a nation!

Shaun

[Vivienne]

Mr. Berger illustrates your conclusions, Mr. Duke, "we have revisionist history, peddled by those who prefer illness masquerading as liberation to health mischaracterized as repression."

This is nothing more than a self-serving mindset when one expresses concern about catastrophic results while ignoring the realities and results already occurring - AIDS, rampant STDs, increased teen pregnancy, pornography addictions, emboldened sexual predators. This is what's being produced in today's okey-dokey promiscuous society. Does Mr. Berger really believe an organization such as NAMBLA is essential to the well being of our society?

[Robert Berger]

Don't get me wrong. In no way do I support a sick organization such as NAMBLA. I'm not saying that It's a good idea for people to be promiscuous.
But there ARE conservatives who want to ban pornography and anything else THEY happen to find offensive. And gambling, abortion, contraception, etc. But censorship does not make any one more virtuous. It will not stop any one from wrongdoing. People will still feel their sexual urges and act on them. In fact, as bad as licentiousness is, extreme prudery and sexual repression are no better.
And homosexuality has existed from the very beginning. You can't stop it period, and more than you can stop heterosexuality.
Homosexuality exists in the animal world, too.
Many Americans are ridiculously prudish. Janet Jackson's breast was exposed on TV for a fraction of a second, and the country treats this as though it were a national emergency. Unbelievable. No wonder Europeans are dying with laughter.

[Vivienne]

Personal responsibilty and accountability doesn't require censorship but it is what the left fears as it is a threat to continued misbehavior.

If it's the European model you seek perhaps you should reread Mr. Duke's article "What Ever Happened to Richard the Lionheart? Britain Accepts Sharia Law."

For if you do indeed fear censorship perhaps this will allow you to better imagine where an "anything goes" society will lead.

[Walt]

Viv wrote, "...imagine where an "anything goes" society will lead."

You do not need to imagine where it will lead; history is littered with, fallen empires; each of which share the common thread. Departing from the Truth or designing your own "truth" has always lead to catastrophe, both as a person and as a culture.

Our perception and dismissal of historic fact, as a culture is akin to a teenager disregarding the advice of an older and wiser parent. As a teen grows up and looks back on his life he looks upon on his folly and struggle, and thinks; I wish I would have listened to...

Mr. Berger, Your argument goes into dangerous territory. Are we merely animals? As you suggest restraint and self control are not possible. If we are merely instinct and chemical reactions than any action should stand unjudged and unpunished. However I think you would agree we are aware and capable of restraint. Most people refrain from murder, many refrain from adultery and some from lying. Any restraint from compromising the Truth is strength. Self control is a Fruit of the Spirit. The Spirit of Truth separates us from animals.

[Billy Shears]

"And homosexuality has existed from the very beginning. You can't stop it period, and more than you can stop heterosexuality.
Homosexuality exists in the animal world, too. "
So what are you implying that homosexuality is just as necessary to life as heterosexuality. Please tell me Mr. Berger what exactly is the purpose of homosexuality. The purpose of sexuality, as I hope you know is procreation. By it's very nature homosexuality is a PERVERSION of this instinct.

And as for homosexuality existing in the animal world (wait, according to your ilk aren't we humans animals too) please visit this webpage http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html.
...

As Andy Warhol said “Sex is the biggest nothing of all time”.

[Robert Berger]

No one knows exactly why homosexuality exists. There has been a great deal of research and speculation, but no conclusive answers.
What I meant is that if some one is homosexual, you cannot stop him or her from being that way any more than you can stop those who are heterosexual from being straight. That's just the way things are. Calling homosexuality a "perversion" or making it illegal will never stop it.
And what consenting adults do in private is no business of the government's.
I happen to be heterosexual.

[Walt]

Robert said, "Calling homosexuality a "perversion" or making it illegal will never stop it."

You are right, but acepting it as mainstream and calling it natural (which it is not) is a psudo endorsement and an accepted option. As society as a whole accepts this perversion of the natural order some that otherwise would have not experimented may do so. At that point the cat is out of the bag. It is unprofitable for any culture to endorse such an act as "normal" unless population control is a top shelf concern.

[Billy Shears]

"What I meant is that if some one is homosexual, you cannot stop him or her from being that way any more than you can stop those who are heterosexual from being straight. That's just the way things are."
http://www.exodus-international.org/

"I happen to be heterosexual."
You don't "happen" to be a heterosexual. It isn't mere chance that you or anyone else is heterosexual. This isn't analogous to one's preferences in ice cream flavors. Heterosexuality is, has always been and will always be the norm, as man's body is complementary to woman's and vice versa. Homosexuality is, has always been and will always be a perversion (by the way to pervert is defined as "to turn away from the right course", assuming heterosexuality is the right course (as any thinking person would) then the label perversion in reference to any sexual fetish (which homosexuality is ) is correct). The effects of this perversion are illness, both mental and physical and the degeneration of society.

[Robert Berger]

Not all gays are as promiscuous as the stereotyped image of the gay man who has countless casual sexual encounters and frquents gay bathhouses. Yes, gay promiscuity is dangerous, but so is heterosexual promiscuity, which is not uncommon.
And certainly, not all straight people are promiscuous. Sexually transmitted diseases have been common for centuries, such as Syphilis, which used to be the AIDS of bygone eras.
But the goal of sex being used only for procreation by married couples is still totally unrealistic.

[Bill Shears]

"Not all gays are as promiscuous as the stereotyped image of the gay man who has countless casual sexual encounters and frquents gay bathhouses. Yes, gay promiscuity is dangerous, but so is heterosexual promiscuity, which is not uncommon.
And certainly, not all straight people are promiscuous. Sexually transmitted diseases have been common for centuries, such as Syphilis, which used to be the AIDS of bygone eras.
But the goal of sex being used only for procreation by married couples is still totally unrealistic."
No one even mentioned promiscuity in relation to homosexuals, but if you want to fine. Studies have indeed demonnstrated that "gays" (an idiotic label for homosexuals that has no basis in truth by the way, most homosexuals are not "gay" but are miserable and depressed.) are more promiscuous, on average, than heterosexuals: (from http://www.narth.com/docs/reporton.html)
"The Gay Report was unique in that for the first time society was permitted a glimpse into the gay subculture, to see if the rumors, stories and hearsay that had persisted for so long were true. In many cases, it appears, they were.

Accusations of promiscuity had long been levelled at the gay community. As Jay and Young's research indicates, these fears were justified. According to the study, 35% of respondents admitted to having had 100 or more different sexual partners throughout their lives (p.249); 18% admitted to having had between seven and 60 such partners in the previous month alone (p. 248), and 18% to having had three or more in the previous week (p. 248). 38% said the longest relationship they had ever had did not last longer than a year (p. 340). For lesbians the average relationship lasted 38 months (p. 302).

In answer to the question "how often do you go home to have sex with someone you have just met?" a total of 50% answered under the "always," "very frequently" or "somewhat frequently category" (p. 251). Jay and Young sum up, "Clearly, then, the one-night stand is within the experience of an overwhelming majority of gay men" (p. 252).

Furthermore, 77% of respondents had taken part in "threesomes" at least once, while 59% had taken part in orgies or group sex (p. 587). 38% had partaken of sadomasochistic practices at least once and 23% had practiced urination in association with sex (p. 555). 24% admitted to having been paid for sex (p. 260).

Nor are gay leaders shy to publicize their feelings in this regard. In the classic gay work Gay Manifesto, author Carl Wittman said that sadomasochism, "when consensual can be described as a highly artistic endeavor, a ballet the constraints of which are the thresholds of pain and pleasure" (cited on p. 554). Celebrated gay poet Allen Ginsberg commented favorably on orgies that, "It's an important human experience to relate to yourself and others as a hunk of meat sometimes" (pgs. 589-590), and referred to the orgy as "one holy divine yoga of losing ego" (590).

Curiously, Jay and Young appear to have little notion that the above constitutes "promiscuity." According to them, "Where does one draw the line and say that certain people have been promiscuous, and others have not? What value judgment is implied by the term 'promiscuous'? These questions are impossible to answer because they depend on subjective attitudes" (p. 249).

They cite gay respondents as saying that, "Promiscuity is a heterosexual concept used to attack us... If you speak in terms of 'sexual freedom' and sharing of sensual experience, it can be a fine thing. I guess it all depends upon motives" (p. 249). Another asserts that, "I have trouble with the word 'promiscuity' because I really do not know what it means. What is the line between infrequent or frequent sex and promiscuity? If I have sex three times a day and am very selective in the choice of mates, am I promiscuous or highly selective and super-horny?" (p. 249)"

[Walt]

Mr. Berger said, "But the goal of sex being used only for procreation by married couples is still totally unrealistic."

I do not think any group of consequence has taken such a stand. It should be the goal of a society to endorse monogamous sexual relations amongst those who are committed to long term monogamy (wed). The one document looked upon as the compilation of Truth (The Bible) does not limit sex to procreation. God knows man and knows the needs and desires of his soul and flesh. Read the Song of Solomon...that is not just about makin babies. It is insane to not agree that the ideal scenario for mankind is monogamy and a two parent household and the purveyance of those ideals to the offspring. This is the perfect scenario. Sex under these conditions is more than blood flow acceleration, a chemical reaction and fluid exchange. It is a way of expressing love and the desire to continue relations with the other when words fail.

To call this ideal "unrealistic" is poppycock. Those who function outside of these parameters of logic and Truth are merely greedy and selfish. Greed is a big liberal catch word when it comes to financial matters and the damnation of the "greedy" is sport. They define greed as anyone that has more than they or disagrees with their definition of wealth or charity. What about social matters? STD's, broken homes and the collateral from them, rape, porn addictions, sexism, teenage pregnancy, abortions and so much more do not only leave lives in turmoil but cost society billions. All for the sake of greed. Getting this under control would be like herding cats with a fire hose but the cats need rounded up just the same. Operating outside the boundaries of the Truth for personal fulfillment is just plain greed!!!! Greedy perverts!!! LOL Our government should wholeheartedly endorse hetero marriage and reward it big-time!! 5 year anniversary 5K tax credit 10 years 10K and so on. "Unrealistic"? If all else fails give up? Our society needs to find its spine.

[W. Tieff]

Well said, mostly. You touched on an item of consideration that I have previously addressed...

http://sit-downsoapbox.blogspot.com/2008/07/institution-of-marriage.html