When we go back and examine some of Dalrock’s older posts like lovestruck we have the excellent analysis:
Because it is love and not marriage which now confers morality upon sex, sex outside of marriage is now considered moral so long as you are in love. Thus we have the modern harlot’s defense/anthem “but we were in love!”. It is also entirely logical for gays to demand the equal right to “declare their love” via marriage under this new twisted paradigm.
Thinking about this in more depth I think we have to come to the conclusion that the main issue is the erosion of morals: sex is created for marriage.
Once you essentially blot out the line between immorality and morality, only thoughts and emotions become truth as there is no higher form of Truth. When thoughts and emotions become “truth”, emotions win because they are a much more instinctual and thus base level of behavior. This elimination of a moral is thus replaced by the new moral: romance (or romantic feelings) are required to have sex. In other words: sex is created for romance.
When we look at the romanticization of love, it did not have such a deleterious effect onto society until sex prior to marriage was advocated for and accepted as a societal norm. We can trace the romanticization of love back to chivalry and even the elevation of such love throughout the early 1950s. However, there weren’t many visible societal negative side effects. This signals to me that romanticization is no culprit. It’s good or bad depending on context. Romance — which leads to sex — in marriage is good and moral. Romance, which leads to sex — outside of marriage is evil and immoral.
Rather, it is the sexual revolution coupled with specifically 2nd and 3rd wave feminism that decouples the morality of sex and marriage, and drives women (and men) to explore those natures outside of marriage.
Now, if we compare and contrast the two “morals” we shouldn’t be surprised at all of the dysfunctional aspects out of marriage and within marriage that are quite easy to see by what we know observationally:
- If sex is created for romance, virginity goes by the wayside and pair bonding with it.
- If sex is created for romance, women have sex at the whims of their feelings which are based upon sexual attraction. Hence, they chase the maximal masculinity they see. Since “good men” will obey the rules of society which demonizes masculinity, women will be primarily attracted to “bad boys” who cannot be shamed away from being masculine.
- If sex is created for romance, women will constantly branch hop at the chance to trade up to better men because there is no such thing as commitment. Commitment is tied to morality, which is tied to sex and marriage. When you do away with the morality of sex in marriage you also do away with commitment.
- If sex is created for romance, following the previous point (no such thing as commitment) the divorce rate will drastically increase.
- If sex is created for romance, getting married decreases the chances that said women/wives will actually have sex with their husbands because he’s not going to be constantly ‘courting her.’
- If sex is created for romance, then it can be increasingly commodified and used as a weapon because it is viable in a more extensive market (outside of marriage). Commodification of sex becomes tied to the capitalism. An increase in prostitution, pornography, attention whoring, sex appeal in the media, and the like only fuels this.
- If sex is created for romance, the destruction of the family results due to decoupling sex with with children and family. Sex becomes solely a means of selfishness rather than family and relational focus.
Anyway, I’m sure there are more things tied in with this. The destruction of the morality of sex in marriage elevates the romance as the new morality. This leads to a plethora of destructive behaviors that destroys the formation of families and the lives of children. This leads to the destruction of societies.