Skin in the Game – Defining the problem of Western Christian sexual degeneracy

You could just say they aren’t Christians, or at any rate not very good ones, but I believe that’s punting on a problem where people will be looking for serious philosophical solutions within the next couple of decades. Generally, I find American Christians still consider the Bible an absolute moral authority, even if they tend to treat it like lawyers treat the Constitution. At least they still feel the need to rationalize around it.

As I described in Sexual degeneracy and Overwatch Theory

There’s a trend in American Christianity so pedestrian that even evangelicals have noticed it. Kids who grow up in church start having sex in their late teens, often becoming complete degenerates in college, and suddenly discover that they are freethinkers with no need for organized religion (and anyway, fuck you dad). Eventually they tire of verbose, academic nihilism and become interested in more mystical religionsspiritualities like Yoga pants and Veganism that seem less judgmental of free love unbridled by the responsibilities of childbirth. But the joke doesn’t end there for those blessed with a black sense of humor, because somewhere along the way these eminently spiritual sexual degenerates acquire a preening moral righteousness that would make Lucifer blush.

The particulars connecting sexuality and religion are a mystery to me, but it seems they are intimate and inextricable (analogous perhaps to the identity of man and wife).

You can point Christian parents and pastors to the statistics about Christian kids who go off to universities, and they’ll shake their heads and agree that yes, it’s a little sad to lose 70% of their children to hellfire. But just try suggesting they NOT send all their kids off to college…and then sit back to watch the gymnastics. This is where Christian nihilism truly shines. Sure, they agree, you try to shelter your kids from drugs and premarital sex, but once they turn 18 it becomes purely a matter of the heart. You wouldn’t knowingly send your 17-year-old daughter to a four-year atheist commune, but once the government says she can buy lottery tickets God takes that as her age of supremely individual accountability and you can’t say word one about her choice to go off to college. Says so right in the Bible…probably? Somewhere?

It’s not like these people are actually nihilists who believe there’s no meaningful you can take in life except prayerful reflection. To prove this, try cutting off one of their fingers. All that stuff about thoughts and prayers will go right out the window and you’ll see an attitude of focused, effective problem-solving manifest itself, with great respect for action within a causal, material reality. But if they swear, be sure to remind them that material reality has no effect on matters of the heart. And if you ever try this experiment, do me a favor…when they complain about what you did, tell them it’s not their place to judge and if they have some anxiety they should ask God to reveal the sin in their life that’s causing it. But even if you don’t, remember it’s a possibility the next time a parent is whining their prayer request about how their kid is doing what every other thoroughly secularized, post-college kid does, which is to shack up and stop going to church.

What I’m getting around to with this contrast is to point out that Christian parents are not actually as gnostic as their rationalizations imply, they’re just biased and using churchy language to justify doing what they already wanted to do. Which is to get their kid to meet someone who isn’t a complete mess and accidentally get pregnant with grandchildren. And you know, more power to them for wanting grandchildren, except we’re sending millions of souls off to try mushrooms and learn about other how other religions are superior, and just hope this doesn’t have any spiritual effects. Which it clearly does. But you can always convert back on your deathbed, right? Sing it with me: His grace is sufficient, therefore do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. (Anyway, everybody knows you have to taste test for at least five years before getting married, anything less would be asking for a divorce.)

It’s not like I have no sympathy for these parents. The odds of their kids meeting someone at church are practically zero (you want a real rant, ask me someday why this is), and Christian Mingle is for society’s dregs.

That leaves…social peers. Which, if you don’t send your kids to college to become members in good standing of the middle class workers union, is gonna be people so degenerate they couldn’t hack it in high school to get into a third-tier state university. So their choices are A) high-status grandkids at the cost of a little secularism, B) degenerate, welfare-class grandkids, and C) no grandkids. It’s not surprising when people take the easy way, just disappointing.

Everyone has skin in this game. Hell, I’m autistic and I’m still trying to figure my way around the proscriptions against fornication. The only thing stopping me is I’m not as good at it. Pastors won’t speak up about it because they’ll lose their jobs, and anyway it appears they preselect for cowardice these days. This dilemma is downstream from the more general problem of the cosmopolitan’s curse, where doing the right or eugenic thing is such a bad deal for the individual that it could be reasonably considered dysfunctional. The problem is insoluble under the modern religion of radical individualism: to fix the problem would require a critical mass of people to make uncompensated sacrifices for the good of their neighbors. Why on earth would they? (Answer: nothing on earth, but treasure in heaven.)

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to Skin in the Game – Defining the problem of Western Christian sexual degeneracy

  1. SirHamster says:

    > Please go get laid first before you lecture us on sexual degeneracy.

    Translation: “Go compromise yourself with sexual degeneracy so I can ignore what you say.”

    Defensive flak means you’re on target. Couple that with the “worthless virgin” lie, and that whole comment is pretty demonic.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      He’s trying to trigger me because I banned him a while back for doxxing another commenter’s mom.

      • Aeoli Pera says:

        I wonder sometimes whether it would be better to leave these up.

        • SirHamster says:

          Oof, that last one’s a doozy.

          The way of wisdom is that you can choose. Answer a fool according to his folly; do not answer a fool according to his folly.

          But it is external to them, and driven by your goals – to promote wisdom in others, or to protect yourself from folly.

    • Brilliand says:

      There is a non-“degenerate” way to get laid (get married, have a baby). While probably not appropriate given the source (I defer to Aeoli’s judgment on that), this sort of statement could be taken to mean “you should experience non-degenerate sex before you try to stamp out the degenerate version”.

      If an unmarried man preaches that sex should be restricted to marriage, it is a valid criticism that he is really preaching celibacy.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Not so, Brilliand. You don’t have to be married to recognize the value of marriage, and to defend it. So far, Aeoli has avoided the main mis-step of most virgin men: they defend an oppressive Churchian view of marriage, not a Biblical one. Easy ways to recognize them are statements like “you can’t remarry until your first wife dies, divorce isn’t allowed for any reason”. Etc. One day Aeoli will have to crunch the math and realize God’s view of polygamy is not only at odds with Churchianity, but is wise, benevolent, and just.

      • Scott Baculalia's Implicitly Schizophrenic Interstellar Pride Parade says:

        It’s a valid criticism when he does not intend to preach celibacy, but there’s nothing wrong with celibacy in and of itself. It only becomes a problem when religions require all followers to be celibate, rather than a chosen few.

      • bicebicebcie says:

        “If an unmarried man preaches that sex should be restricted to marriage, it is a valid criticism that he is really preaching celibacy.”

        ?!? Seems to me like he is promoting Health, as in telegony and aids is very real also frogs turning gay from roasties pill-fuelled piss into the main water supply. There is a dimension of selfishness in this, just like assault-incels are driven by lack of sex from not one woman but every woman on the planet (GirlS don’t like me, niggah you only need one ffs).

        That is not altrustic at all, it is not christian, it is not healthy it is not normal, it is standard sape mode with ooga booga sprinkled on top for more dramatic effect.

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          I’m not preaching celibacy at all, and I consider hieros gamos in particular to be an abomination.

          By analogy, I have a spiritual gift for voluntary poverty. Greed is a complete non-issue for me. But I would not tell people there’s virtue in poverty, it’s more like I don’t interact with that dimension of life at all. And I certainly wouldn’t suggest church elders ought to remain poor- on the contrary, I believe they should be wealthier than average.

          But bringing it back around, if 1% of your population has 50% of the wealth, there’s a serious problem. That’s not how a healthy society looks. I’d *guess* that a healthy society follows the 80/20 rule, and a Christian one is about halfway between that and equality of outcome.

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          One of the dumber things I’ve heard was when I was pushing monogamy at VP a while back and one of the Alphas called it sexual socialism. Because only butthurt losers would think it’s a bad idea for 80% of women to be broached in high school by 20% of men.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            The opposite of 80% of teen girls being deflowered by 20% of men is not monogamy. You’re setting up a false dichotomy.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              I think it’s time we argued out the mathematical model you’ve been referring to. Do you want to go first?

            • Brilliand says:

              I think Mycroft is right, and i don’t think it depends on model. I’ll demonstrate. For starters, I’m assuming that the important metric for Aeoli is what percentage of men get to deflower a woman (which by definition allows only one man per woman).

              80% of woman deflowered by 20% of men: 40% of men get to deflower a woman
              Monogamy: (% of men who deflower a woman) = (% of women who get to have sex): probably close to 100%
              All the men actively compete for women’s virginity: The ratio becomes much less extreme (probably in the 60%-80% range)
              Skewed birthrate: 5x as many women as men. 100% of men get to deflower a woman.
              Sexual introduction program in which 14-year-olds are paired off to take each other’s virginity: 100% of men get to deflower a woman (and the reverse!)

              Lots of options besides extreme skew and monogamy there! Hence: False dichotomy.

              Actually, though… I think Aeoli is implicitly considering monogamy ideal, and considering anything that breaks the monogamy model as bad. Otherwise, who cares who the women lose their virginity to? We should be looking at who they have children with.

  2. Texan TT says:

    Keep going. You’ve got a killer thesis/meme gestating in you on this subject. Keep laboring and you’ll give birth to it eventually.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      I hope so, if there’s a solution for the West other than dying in mass and being replaced by a healthy culture, that solution isn’t clear. I don’t see a Come to Jesus revival in the works, or at least not yet. That would require genuine humility in a population that has no concept of it. But I see a lot of self-righteousness parading around.

  3. Ø says:

    >we’re sending millions of souls off to try mushrooms and learn about other how other religions are superior

    A college professor is an ardent atheist until any spiritual system that is not Christianity is brought up, at which point xe becomes The Prophet Zhayden-hommad (pronounced “Jayden-hommad”)

    >Why on earth would they? (Answer: nothing on earth, but treasure in heaven.)


    • Ø says:

      If hitting your dumbass kids with a belt out of love for them and for their own good did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it

      • Ø says:

        >Hitting children lowers IQ

        I was making a joke illustrating the general necessity of disciplining your children by taking a well-known philosophical observation (“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him”) and inserting edgy humor into it. Actually hitting my kids with a belt is not a particularly pleasant idea, nor is it something that I forsee ever being forced to do if genetics are a reliable predictor of behavior (I was a very well-behaved and even somewhat reticent child until I turned about 17/18 and started partying balls and socially-competing heavily).

        Of course, this is assuming I even live to have kids; in actuality I’ll probably end up like Bill Paxton in Aliens, but instead of cool Xenomorphs it’ll be androgynous frogfaced 4’11” latinxes with dual citizenships, KY lube for blood and rainbow dildos strapped to their foreheads dragging me through the floor

        • Ø says:

          I agree that Aeoli should send you the archive of Vault-co or put it up somewhere because it would be good to have. I don’t know why Tex obliterated the whole thing when he updated the appearance of his webpage.

      • Aeoli Pera says:

        The Bible tells me so.

    • Ø says:

      >However, none of the Alphas have any balls to do it because they are too busy loving Niggers and Feminism.

      I think it would be more accurate to say that most Alphas are too busy casually *feigning* affection for the shitlib cause while engaging in various self-interested pursuits than it would be to say they actually have any real degree of sympathy or fondness for nogs/dykes

  4. Boneflour says:

    Nice Poast 10/10

  5. Boneflour says:

    Jim’s blog has some similar thoughts from a more or less secular perspective.

    “Thus “Christian” hostility to God the Father kills the Christian Church dead. A religion is a tribe, and actually existent Christianity is hostile to its own tribe, much as the US government is hostile to legacy Americans.

    Anti patriarchal Christianity is a self contradiction – but it is all we have got…”

    “…But you cannot have a Christian Church, except it is solidly patriarchal and goes full Pauline on marriage. If no patriarch, then no nuclear family, if no nuclear family, then no extended family, if no extended family, then no support for actual kinship. If no support for actual kinship, then no adoptive kinship. If no adoptive kinship, no church.”

    In conclusion, I must become stronger for the people who care about me. The problem is me, and so I must change my own actions. Gotta man up and White Sharia those normies.

    • bicebicebcie says:

      I wonder if the Comunnists, who were atheists worshipping the state, actually didn’t destroy Orthodoxy on grounds of it “not being the Americans to destroy”, they had no right with ther degeneracy and out of spite it was kept intact, while american colleges turned atheist-nihilists… they saw the value of it. Lets just say they were pragmatic.

      Is the blockhead-roundhead alliance of the east superior to the oval-squarehead western one? Grug is soo damn dumb he realizes that keeping the family together is paramount, even if it includes taking supreme moral authority guidance from le kike on the stick. Men wielding clubs are once again bringing down an atomic-powered Civilization., if the stories aobut the ancient ITZ´s are true.


  6. Post Alley Crackpot says:

    “Everyone has skin in this game …”

    I saw what went down over at Vox Popoli in the comments section, and although you might not be seeking advice or criticism, this needs to be said …

    Let’s start with the short version rich in “alpha frame”: learn how to take a fucking punch.

    Now the longer version.

    Your philosophy and observations in general pre-suppose something called “the axiom of choice” in many ways, and so the conclusions that can be sought from actual attempts to use your philosophy are bound by the conditions of sets that have this property. In short, if you use ZF(C) as your mental playground, then all of your ideas reside within ZF(C) as well.

    That drags the necessity of transitive and reflexive properties back into anything you’re thinking about.

    Another way of seeing this is that what goes forward must also go backward as well.

    The push back you received was because you didn’t take into account the complicating effects of things going in a direction you’d perceive as backward, and maybe that’s because the implications hit close to home.

    With what you’re doing, I see some systems building efforts going on, but little so far that says, “OK, so what if we take the wisdom of the systems theories and then condense some of that into rules to live by?”

    You could say that the Bible is an attempt at reducing the systems theories behind a number of things, including the existence of a unifying power, the origins of man, and future time orientation, to something that can be followed by people who don’t need to muster the mental processing power to see the systems and how they interconnect.

    Christianity is by analogy an operating system, and you’ve been trying to offer “mental patch kits” as required by circumstances and thinking. Most people don’t have to know the machinery in order to know how to use it, just as long as it works, and those “mental patch kits” might be helpful every now and then.

    But don’t think that you’re not going to get sucker punched once in a while for doing that.

    As for why I’m no longer over there, I can’t be arsed to sign up an Blogger account — I prefer to work in the shadow of the silent majorities anyway.

  7. cloom says:

    I think the axiom gets chosen by aeoli. Maybe we have to put the emphasis on the word axiom, not the word “choice”. Then the phrase means “which axiom did you choose”. An axiom is a foundation truth. Choose the different axiom, then you get the different playground, he said.

  8. Pingback: Quotage Thursday. – Dark Brightness

  9. “The odds of their kids meeting someone at church are practically zero (you want a real rant, ask me someday why this is),”

    Go for it. I want to see where our data agrees.

  10. Pingback: Conditions for optimism | Aeoli Pera

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s