The freedom to disseminate any ideologies, in the USA, was only consolidated in the decade of 1937, when mass communication was a fact . I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this release took place just at the dawn of the age of propaganda, and I think it was a deliberate work by progressives to shove propaganda into citizens’ homes without them being able to take legislative action against it.
If advertising already had power before TV and at the time when women stayed at home taking care of their children, imagine after, when children even started to demand less attention from adults for being distracted by TV and, now, with cell phones.
The moral inaugurated by progressivism at the beginning of the 20th century was Margaret Sanger’s: women must change housework for street work and must pay his own bills. Not only must she have the freedom to decide to pay her own bills, she must not have a home; she must “free herself” from the domestic chores inherent to the constitution of a family. In addition to the salary, with this change, the woman would also gain the freedom to have sex with whoever she wanted, whenever she wanted. Contraceptive methods would be made available in droves. Abortion did not become publicized until much later, and Margaret Sanger herself did not take kindly to it. In any case, the operation consisted of increasing sex while decreasing its natural consequences, namely, stabilizing a woman’s relationship with a man and having children.
Much is said that monogamy is a social construction and a particular cultural datum, and it is true. However, it is difficult to think of a constituted society without some degree of stabilization of sexual relations. The sultan is not monogamous, but he is married. The polygamy propagated by today’s progressives is a sterile hustle; it’s volatile and pornographic, it has nothing to do with parenting. The most similar precedent to sex without commitment is the brothel, where women sell sex to several men, without stabilizing. It is said that prostitution is the “oldest profession in the world”, but there is no precedent for a brothel-civilisation, where no one belongs to anyone all the time.
No wonder, therefore , that the birth rate falls. People are capable of having a dog instead of having a child, and then passing smallpox from the monkey to the dog.
Change in culture
Of course, not everyone adhered to progressive morality, and even among the most militant of the cause we find traditional couples, without even children out of wedlock. Look at the feminists’ favorite heartthrob, Rodrigo Hilbert (1980), or the most deconstructed cis-straight-white-man around, Bruno Gagliasso (1982). Even Wagner Moura (1937) is the father of a traditional family.
It will be the case of “Say what I say , but don’t do what I do”? Maybe, but it’s not enough to explain. If we look at the older generation of sexual liberation, especially on the left, we see agitated biographies. Caetano Veloso (1942) has children from different marriages, wrote love songs for men he was involved with, and, now in his forties, seduced a teenager. Zé Celso Martínez (1937), the Brazilian icon of the sexual revolution, leaves no trace of a traditional family in his biography. Margaret Sanger herself, who was strictly progressive and did not mix with Marxism, had a more hectic love/family life than that of Giovanna Ewbank (1986) and Fernanda Lima (1977), who married only their current husbands and fathers of their children (namely, the aforementioned Gagliasso and Hilbert). Sanger had two marriages; the first, with the father of three children, ended in divorce. (In the old days, divorces used to be long.) The year after the divorce, she married her second husband, who went on to become a smuggler and diaphragm manufacturer. She didn’t have any more children.
My explanation for this is generational. Before, to adhere to the sexual morals of the progressives, it was necessary to be of the shovel; the straight ones did what is good manners. Nowadays, however, it is good manners to defend what the old men of the shovel did. As a result, the straight ones are a lot of mouth-to-mouth. They marry, have children, do not separate, work, accumulate private property – they are, in short, perfect bourgeois capitalists – but point the little finger at the doorman who will vote for Bolsonaro and praise the sexual freedom of the funkeira far away, in the favela. They also say they think the release of consciousness provided by drugs is very beautiful, but if the children show up with something heavier than a joint, the house will fall. For other people’s children, crack is liberating.
But that’s how it is with the thirties and forties, who grew up with parents who still had morals traditional. Progressive propaganda did not have a free course in its formation.
Learning from a gossip column
Imagine who is still in their twenties , and who, on top of that, works in the artistic milieu. Across the West, propaganda has made it clear that life is for having sex, and that to be successful in life is to have a large number of sexual partners. (Dalrymple often mentions the case of a little boy who cried a lot because he was called a virgin. He didn’t know what that meant, but it sucked.)
In the case of women, I think there is no precedent of this morality in other cultures. A woman of childbearing age who has sex with many men is frowned upon in any other culture I can think of. (Even if you are a prostitute, it is a sign that it is very cheap.) And it is not enough to simply have sex with several “people”, it is necessary to enjoy it and have many orgasms.
As our culture talks a lot of sex, it is natural for children to be curious. In my day, grandparents complained about TV’s indecency; today, in addition to seeing risqué things on TV, children have an entire internet to research. Thus, the age of access to pornography has been falling, and if it used to be a boy thing, today it’s a girl thing too. With celebrity news, we learn that singer Billie Eilish (2001) started viewing pornography at 1937 years and that it did him a lot of harm. “The first few times I had sex, I wasn’t saying ‘no’ to things that weren’t good. It’s because I thought that was what I had to like,” she said. Girls tend to have the agreeableness trait; they tend to strive to be accepted. If society says it’s good to have sex, it remains to be seen how to have sex. And the model of sex that she will find on the internet is not the mom and dad with actors faking love. It’s slap and choke, to say the least. You will probably learn that using a vibrator and having anal sex is highly empowering. Gays feel pleasure because they have a prostate; women do not have it, but they will pretend to like it, yes, otherwise they are reactionary, puritanical, etc.
“I am asexual”
After not liking it, the girl will come across a lot of feminist propaganda that says that if it wasn’t good, it’s rape. This explains why there are so many complaints of harassment in progressive circles: consent is not clear even for the woman, who in fact does things she doesn’t want to do.
Another possible response to this situation that is, realizing that she doesn’t like it and refusing to repeat it, the girl concludes that there is something wrong with her. That’s what Bruna Marquezine did provisionally (1995). In the podcast of the aforementioned Giovanna Ewbank, she explained that she could not be in the “noronha hustle” because she was in a phase where she believed to be asexual. But then she passed. She explained it like this: “I think because I saw my friends talking a lot and some even charging me ‘for God’s sake, if I had your age and your body, I’d be giving it to half of Rio de Janeiro’. I was like, ‘Guys, I don’t want to. I really don’t want to’. It was a process of really filling myself, feeling whole and feeling attractive again, enough again and being interested in people. There’s a thing about partners and being more comfortable with me. So, I’m more comfortable in bed, to say what I want, what I like. Then it got a little more fun and passed its phase.” From there, you can see her conception of normality, who until then had a long relationship without talking about marriage.
With the ideology of gender, asexuality was invented; is the letter A for LGBTQIA. If a normal girl watches porn, thinks that sex is that, and therefore thinks that it’s not for her, she concludes that she belongs to the LGBTQIA community as asexual. As everything in this ideology is “spectrum”, activists invented demisexuality (sic), and the asexual association characterized this peculiar sexual orientation as the need to have an emotional bond in order to have sexual attraction. That is, a description of a normal woman is now a description of an LGBTQIA. It could just be an association of weirdos, but we see that Bruna Marquezine has the same conception of a normal woman as they do. And, as the article in The Guardian shows, thousands began to identify as demisexual after the term appeared on the internet in 2006.
It is possible that by this we understand the increase in lesbian relationships between girls who are not lesbians. Not having sex is ugly, the celibate (or incel) is treated as a potential terrorist, and, as male-female porn is full of weirdness, it remains to have sex between girls (even if you don’t like it), which at least doesn’t hurt. Celibacy is only possible, in progressivism, if it is transformed into an identity. The “asexual” identity is just the beginning. With trans fashion, the girl can reject her own body and not want to be a woman, without even wanting to be a man. I wrote here about Maia Kobabe, who grew up reading gay porn and considers herself a non-binary asexual person.
Moral of the story? Do not give smartphone to a child and pay attention to the identities claimed by peers.
