Lion of the Blogosphere

There’s no premarital sex in Utopia

with 69 comments

Thomas More writes in the book Utopia (as translated by Paul Turner):

Any boy or girl convicted of premarital intercourse is severely punished, and permanently disqualified from marrying, unless this sentence is remitted by the Mayor. The man and woman in charge of the household in which it happens are also publicly disgraced, for not doing their jobs properly. The Utopians are particularly strict about that kind of thing, because they think very few people would want to get married – which means spending one’s whole life with the same person, and putting up with all the inconveniences that this involves – if they weren’t carefully prevented from having any sexual intercourse otherwise.

Thomas More would not have been surprised that, after the so-called sexual revolution, when the belief that premarital sex is sinful came to replaced with the belief that people who don’t have premarital sex are losers, the result would be a severe decline in marriage.

We have a lot sociologists today who are befuddled by the decline, but the relationship between premarital sex and the desire to get married was plain old common sense to a guy living in the early 1500s.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

March 16, 2017 at 1:06 pm

69 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. but they are allowed to inspect one another naked before marriage. Or am I misremembering?

    Magnavox

    March 16, 2017 at 1:15 pm

  2. I was doing some informal research on historic illegitimacy rates a few years ago and noticed something interesting. While illegitimacy rates were much lower this wasn’t because people weren’t having sex. In fact, there was just s much teen pregnancy as now. The difference is that people were getting married younger.

    Today, most people postpone marriage to go to university and establish their careers. But would so many be postponing marriage if fornication wasn’t so widespread? Or if birth control and abortion weren’t so widely available? I don’t think so. They’d still be getting married younger just like they used to.

    destructure

    March 16, 2017 at 1:43 pm

    • It’s pretty simple to take old birth certificates and marriage records and figure out that something like a quarter of brides were a couple months pregnant back in olden times. I would assume most of these couples were probably going to get married anyway. It’s abortion and contraception and also the financial feasibility of “single motherhood” that has really screwed things up.

      bobbybobbob

      March 16, 2017 at 2:27 pm

      • Even Shakespeare was likely forced by circumstances into marriage.

        I find it kind of telling that Jerry Garcia felt compelled to marry the first companion he got pregnant (and abandoned her after about one year) but didnt repeat the exercise with the second gal he knocked up, at least not until about 12 yrs later.

        Jerry was a trend setter.

        Curle

        March 16, 2017 at 9:20 pm

      • I don’t think it’s abortion, contraception, or finances. After all, Japan is a first world country where it is not financially disastrous to be a single mother. They have easy access to condoms and abortion there. Yet the bastardy rate is low because of social pressures.

        SImilarly, even though many Scandinavian children are officially born out-of-wedlock, their parents stay in de-facto marriage-like relationships at a higher rate than American children born in wedlock. Again, there’s no law in Sweden saying that men and women who are in a de-facto marriage-like relationship have to stay together, yet they tend to do so.

        Hader

        March 16, 2017 at 10:41 pm

      • @Hader,

        Good point. Japan is the Great Exception to almost everything shitty about modernity, it seems. Even their obesity rate is low – because of social pressure. They fat-shame the crap out of people.

        gothamette

        March 17, 2017 at 2:49 pm

    • Getting married early is a very bad idea. Getting married in ur teens and early twenties raises chances of divorce exponentially. Think about that 4 a sec.

      Wt

      March 16, 2017 at 4:45 pm

      • People used to marry much younger as well as having a much lower divorce rate.

        destructure

        March 16, 2017 at 8:03 pm

      • Just because they did it 50 years ago doesn’t mean it is a good idea. At 20, you are much less likely to know what u want out of life than when 30. There are exceptions sure.

        Wt

        March 16, 2017 at 9:20 pm

      • In early VA there was a fairly significant cohort of wealthy women made so by outliving 3 or even 4 men and inheriting their properties. I’ve no idea whether VA was an outlier in this regard, nor even why the mortality rate was so much higher for the men vs the women who made it through childbearing. But, I’m guessing divorce was less compelling in an age where a lot of people died by their thirties.

        Curle

        March 16, 2017 at 9:59 pm

      • In “early Virginia,” i.e., the British colony, men outnumbered women vastly. Look it up – 6/1, 4/1, the ratios varied, but it was a huge lopsided ratio.

        There was also intermarriage between black and white indentured servants and again, the sex ratios were so lopsided that they were mostly black men/white women. The children became “free persons of color” or intermarried into the white population and disappeared as blacks. Yes, it’s possible after a few generations. Phenotypic traits are only about 12-13% of the genome.

        gothamette

        March 17, 2017 at 10:30 am

      • The point is, the stats happening now didn’t happen then because of the wasp social order, and they wouldn’t be happening now under a true wasp social order. Thanks jews.

        Pat from SI

        March 17, 2017 at 2:10 pm

      • @Wt

        People often notice a correlation and mistake one for causing the other. Then they latch on to some explanation assuming that if what the explanation attempts to explain is true then the explanation must be true as well.

        I don’t doubt the correlation between marrying young and a higher divorce rate. I’m just not convinced it’s entirely or even directly caused by age. I think other factors play a larger role.

        For example, studies show the #1 cause of divorce is money. People in their mid twenties are usually in a better financial position than someone in their teens and early twenties. They’ve had time to learn a trade or graduate university and start a career. So the cause would be financial stress not age.

        Also, as mentioned earlier, smarter people tend to postpone marriage to focus on education and launch their career. That means those who get married earlier nowadays tend to be from the left side of the bell curve. So age would have a correlation due to self-selection bias. It wouldn’t be the cause, either.

        And, finally, circumstances can certainly make marriage easier or more difficult. And that would certainly show up in statistics. But I think values, personality and impulse control are more important in determining the outcome of any particular marriage. Some people are just going to stay married or get divorced regardless.

        Some people change partners as easily as they change their socks. While others are like swans and mate for life. I think such mating behaviors are largely genetically programmed. They certainly appear to be programmed in other species. I don’t see why they wouldn’t be in humans as well. Even if people exhibit a variety of behaviors.

        destructure

        March 17, 2017 at 2:40 pm

      • @WT –

        I don’t have a URL but I was listening to a discussion of this on NPR once and the research seems to say that people who marry in their mid-20s have the best life and marriage outcomes. Mid-20s is not too young but young enough so that you don’t get set in your ways. Yes, this was NPR. By mid-30s marriage rates go down considerably. I don’t know how current this research is.

        gothamette

        March 17, 2017 at 2:51 pm

      • “The point is, the stats happening now didn’t happen then because of the wasp social order, and they wouldn’t be happening now under a true wasp social order. Thanks jews.”

        What’s with this lower-case insult? The WASP social order never really existed in the whole country, and its destruction had nothing to do with Jews.

        The Transcendentalists were preaching free love in the 19th century, and practicing it. And genius, tell us which class of Christians were hard on “horses, slaves, and women”?

        gothamette

        March 17, 2017 at 2:55 pm

      • studies show the #1 cause of divorce is money.

        Baha! Do you believe that?

        SJ, Esquire (formerly Samson J)

        March 17, 2017 at 5:01 pm

      • “Baha! Do you believe that?”

        Some studies say so. Regardless, it’s a big one.

        destructure

        March 18, 2017 at 5:17 pm

    • In the old days, the rich married younger because they could afford it. The poor had to wait till they could afford marriage. Also, how many guys would be much happier married to a girl aged 18 or even 15 than to some woman 27 or 32? How many good years are left at 32? 10? 15 maybe? But if he had married her at 18, it would be more like 25 or 30 good years before the grumpy old woman emerged

      no too late

      March 16, 2017 at 6:42 pm

      • Love and Marriage are 2 separate things. To go on without boring u too much, let me just paraphrase from vague memory what I read long time ago that felt very appropriate to me.

        For love you are seeking someone you want to go vacation with. For marriage you are seeking someone you want to start a business with.

        Biggest downfall of men and women who think that just because u got the hots for someone you can marry them.

        For marriage you need to take into consideration other things like your partners outlook on money, religion, kids. Their education, social class, their family. People in their early twenties don’t have that judgment.

        Wt

        March 16, 2017 at 9:30 pm

      • Just because they did it 50 years ago doesn’t mean it is a good idea.

        Yes, in general anything they did “back then” is prima facie a better idea than what we do now, except that we are getting so far along in years now that it’s time for us to update the oft-used “50 years ago” expression. What we actually mean, at this point, is “60 years ago”.

        SJ, Esquire (formerly Samson J).

        March 17, 2017 at 7:49 am

    • Average age at first marriage in certain Middle Eastern countries has been reported to be 25+, compare to America’s at 27, so I don’t think so. More likely young people would just respond by not having sex. Marriage looks like a very good deal to someone if they do backbreaking labor for 60 hours a week and live in a log cabin with minimal options for entertainment. But to the modern young person, life is just too good to want to immediately make the sacrifice in freedom that marriage is.

      jasonbayz

      March 17, 2017 at 11:14 am

      • I just looked up “List of countries by age at first marriage” on wikipedia and the only definite trend I could find is that less developed countries tend to get married several years earlier than more developed countries. I think one could find other trends. But I also think the numbers are affected by circumstances unique to each such as economy, war, culture, religion, etc So it would be difficult to make an apples to apples comparison.

        destructure

        March 17, 2017 at 4:21 pm

  3. “…was plain old common sense to a guy living in the early 1500s.”

    It was also common sense to think the best way to cure an illness was to cover yourself in leeches.

    Dain

    March 16, 2017 at 1:48 pm

    • I don’t agree that was common sense, that was the medical profession coming up with remedies not based on valid scientific research, which is that the medical profession is still doing today.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 16, 2017 at 1:51 pm

      • Leeching does work:

        http://www.biopharm-leeches.com/clinical.html

        And More had a point. Destructure is missing the point. More was creating an ideal society, not directly describing the real world.

        gothamette

        March 16, 2017 at 2:25 pm

      • I thought I made a mistake by spelling his name More and not Moore. I looked it up. It is More.

        gothamette

        March 16, 2017 at 2:26 pm

      • That’s why I need an editor. I have to settle for crowd-sourced editing, but unfortunately that comes with esteem-deflating comments like “Lion, you are TOO STUPID to spell correctly.”

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 16, 2017 at 2:32 pm

      • Damn your goddamn eyes Lion, I did NOT say that.

        gothamette

        March 16, 2017 at 2:37 pm

      • I didn’t mean that you meant that, but some other commenters do.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 16, 2017 at 4:09 pm

      • gothamette — I’m a pragmatist. I don’t believe in an ideal world.

        destructure

        March 16, 2017 at 3:32 pm

      • I was joking, which does not work on the Internet, sighs.

        gothamette

        March 16, 2017 at 5:16 pm

    • If you have a serious infection and have no antibiotics bleeding is still a good option. Bacterial reproduction is rate limited by iron availability, but your body can cope with low iron levels for a while. If using leeches rather than just a lancet, the leeches impart anticoagulants and anti-inflammatories. A few studies show regular blood donors enjoying better health.

      bobbybobbob

      March 16, 2017 at 2:36 pm

      • Regular blood donors are healthier to begin with. That is why they can donate.

        no too late

        March 16, 2017 at 6:44 pm

      • I choose not to donate blood because I am sickly and feel too much phlebotomy would weaken me.

        jjbees

        March 16, 2017 at 7:00 pm

      • Gee, I suppose the people who have studied this never thought to use a cox model. Oh, wait, they’re not total morons and did that, so never mind.

        Iron accumulates in tissues as part of the aging process and contributes to disease. Americans in particular get *way* too much iron. The iron fortification in everything is an obvious problem and it’s a scandal that the requirements haven’t been revised. Many argue that the alleged gluten allergy epidemic is really about the iron and bromine added to American flour. Regular blood donations are a great way to keep iron levels down. I also avoid American baked goods and cereals entirely because of the iron issue.

        bobbybobbob

        March 16, 2017 at 8:56 pm

      • I donate because I have absolutely no traces of STDs in my system and thus they can use my blood on individuals who cannot tolerate traces of STDS. (Apparently I am in a small minority on this, even among the upstanding citizens who donate blood regularly). Some of the nurses recognize this and are real nice and appreciative to me and some other nurses just look at me as if I were a nobody.

        howitzer daniel

        March 16, 2017 at 10:23 pm

      • Nurses are prole.

        SWPL when tend to be nicer in a professional capacity.

        A lot of prole women like being mean.

        Jjbees

        March 17, 2017 at 2:08 pm

      • jjbees – that is true. I am surrounded by women of all kinds so I am amused at the few who are rude to me, thinking in their prideful hearts that I will be offended at their choice to be rude to me. I am sure that there are women who are similarly amused by boorish men, and they think, this guy is being rude, does he not know how many better guys I spend time with every day, and how happy I am to have him be rude so I know that we will not have to deal with each other for more than a few moments? Well, while I am amused by the rude nurses, life is not simple: one time I was giving blood and I am fairly certain one of the rude nurses did not follow hygiene procedures: we all have to watch out for rude people who border on criminal negligence and worse. I felt sick for just a day – no permanent harm – so I think she was being negligent, not intentional. Still, we all need to look out for those who would do us harm.

        howitzer daniel

        March 17, 2017 at 9:50 pm

  4. It’s amazing how liberals and leftists are complete liars when it comes to sex.

    “Come one, loosen up! It’s only sex you knuckle dragging Puritan. It’s not that important. There aren’t any significant consequences to letting ourselves explore our natural desires. Relax man!”

    “You can’t take our sex away!! We need our sex! What would we do without it?!”

    Leftists are only consistent about one thing: destruction of the Good, the True and the Beautiful. Everything is just a means to that end. That’s how you know it’s literally demonic in inspiration.

    Andrew E.

    March 16, 2017 at 1:50 pm

    • I don’t understand the contradiction you’re alleging. What happened with sex, over the last 25-30 years, is actually quite simple. From the late ’60’s through the mid ’80s, the prevailing message to women was that having sex was sophisticated – liberation from the bad straighjacketed ’50’s. So for example in 1986, you’d see urban (liberal) women driving around with bumperstickers that read, “so many men, so little time.” But starting around 1989, a different message started to get disseminated – sex was actually capitulation to men, and being adversarial, even nasty, to men was actually more liberating and more fun than sex. This necessarily means that sex is a lot less common than it used to be, so now frequency is what people lie about.

      marty

      March 16, 2017 at 4:16 pm

      • What happened was better medical care which cut down on VD.

        gothamette

        March 16, 2017 at 5:17 pm

      • STD rates are not lower.

        no too late

        March 16, 2017 at 6:46 pm

  5. OT but I gotta post this:

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/barack-obama-spend-month-french-polynesia-061430706.html

    What do LotBers think of this remarkable thing?

    I think….Obama is lying low because his nefarious booby-trap “government in exile” plot has been exposed.

    He’s without Michelle because they are sick and tired of each other. BTW, I don’t think he’s gay. I do think he’s strangely asexual. So that fits in with this post, sort of.

    gothamette

    March 16, 2017 at 3:18 pm

    • He was able to get it up enough times to impregnate Michelle twice.

      But he’s also 55, and you know men lose their sex drive once they reach middle-age, despite the fact that you see old men having sex in movies.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 16, 2017 at 4:10 pm

      • Put most of us in a room alone with a naked 24 yr old female of average proportions and you’ll see plenty of sex drive.

        Frankly, it gets harder and harder (excuse the pun) to get worked up over middle aged women as you age. Those so-called MILF stories are probably on to something because young guys can get worked up over anything. Older guys, not so much.

        I suspect most middle aged guys with means have neither the time nor the energy to cheat and I don’t think betrayal is appealing to people who arrived at a stable place in life by being dependable. So the old guys settle for a less than optimal sex lives.

        Curle

        March 16, 2017 at 10:17 pm

    • Why is Obama going to French goddamn Polynesia for a month? Is this some Illuminati thing. (I am JOKING.)

      Couldn’t he go to Hawaii instead? Isn’t that Polynesia?

      gothamette

      March 16, 2017 at 5:18 pm

      • Because French Polynesia is much much more beautiful than Hawaii (or Caribbean). I know beauty is in the eyes of the beholder but this one is absolute.

        Wt

        March 16, 2017 at 6:19 pm

    • Obama is lying low because his nefarious booby-trap “government in exile” plot has been exposed.

      On Tucker Carlson’s program Trump big revelations were promised in the next two weeks. If the last administration is confident their investigation into Trump was on the up and up they hide it well.

      Couldn’t he go to Hawaii instead? Isn’t that Polynesia?

      Hawaii is American Polynesia.

      American.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      March 16, 2017 at 5:54 pm

    • I wonder if Obama is trying to tap into his celebrity (that he couldn’t white president) to bang the hot white girls he has always secretly wanted to bang.

      jjbees

      March 16, 2017 at 7:04 pm

    • I dont like it in general when things go OT back to politics but this is an odd situation.

      – The WashPo just ran a long article on Steve Bannon with multiple reporters talking to a dozens of sources trying to established when he was living in Florida, when in California and when in DC. They even had copies of rental documents and talked to neighbors to see if Bannon was “seen in the area”. And its not clear for what purpose this investigation was launched since having multiple residences when you are a millionaire isnt interesting or noteworthy.
      Meanwhile we know of only two women Obama ever even dated. Thats a strange gap in media inquisitiveness.

      – Obama is staying on this out of the way island on David Geffens yacht. If that is anything like pictures of Barry Diller’s vacation that means boys town.
      If there was some place that Obama was going to kick his heels up it would be staying on a private yacht moored off a private island.

      Lion o' the Turambar

      March 16, 2017 at 7:28 pm

      • David Geffen’s yacht?

        I may have to revise my opinion about Obama’s secks-u-alitay.

        gothamette

        March 17, 2017 at 10:26 am

      • @LoT,
        The political situation is truly alarming. As we speak Trump’s presidency is being destroyed by a coalition of media, Deep State, his own party…etc.

        The Never Trumpers didn’t go anywhere. And I don’t laugh at them from the perspective of a casual commenter on an obscure blog. These guys have power and they won’t give it up.

        I wonder why Tillerson accepted the job. He’s a bought and paid for member of the Club.

        gothamette

        March 17, 2017 at 10:33 am

      • “As we speak Trump’s presidency is being destroyed by a coalition of media, Deep State, his own party…etc. “

        Dont leave out Trump’s weekly self inflicted wounds. Whats the point of the President undermining the reliability and authority of the Presidency.

        Deep State is clearly feeding information to the Democrats who are positioning it though “leaks” to the media. That all could rebound to Trump’s benefit- but not if he blows his credibility before he can prove anything.

        They really need to get Roger Alies back in the mix and muzzle Trump. He took the wrong message from his win.

        Lion o' the Turambar

        March 17, 2017 at 4:25 pm

    • I wonder if Obama is trying to tap into his celebrity (that he couldn’t white president) to bang the hot white girls he has always secretly wanted to bang.

      Unlikely.

      Obama seemed happier swimming with Richard Branson, a white male.

      Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      March 16, 2017 at 9:06 pm

  6. Thomas More and the rest of the Anglo Prole thinkers with their celibate-cerebralism lead to a preponderance of incel losers in the English Speaking world. Francis Bacon, a freemason and philosopher championed celibacy as a sanctimonious thing. Then the Anglo Prole world gave us the “PUA” Manosphere culture as a reactionary element. Oh what bloody murder!

    JS

    March 16, 2017 at 10:16 pm

    • This is not an Anglo-Saxon phenomenon. It’s a reaction of the races genetically unsuited for strict Christian sexual morality. Since there are more women then men born, polygamy is the only system that can provide every woman with a husband. Unless everyone can find a match, you cannot eliminate immorality. This is Darwin. More is thinking good, but we need to do better.

      Yakov

      March 17, 2017 at 8:14 am

      • More males are born than females, even when sex-selection (by abortion) is not occurring. The natural ratio is something like 105 boys for every 100 girls.

        SQ

        March 17, 2017 at 12:51 pm

      • By the Jews its 49/51 male/female. But the rest if the world is mixed and I dunno why.
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sex_ratio

        Yakov

        March 17, 2017 at 2:03 pm

      • English thinkers were socially inept and delusional.

        Renowned French philosopher, Descartes gave birth to a child out of wedlock.

        JS

        March 17, 2017 at 10:06 pm

    • 0 males are proud that their moms slept with someone other than their dads before being conceived; that’s really all there is to it. Celibacy by choice, voluntarily, is awe-inspiring. Premarital sex is not ideal for families in civilised society.

      DaddyFrank

      March 17, 2017 at 10:31 am

      • Celibacy by choice us a chimera. Can a woman control her period by choice? There is a biological process of old supermarket dying and new sperm being created to replace it. New cells replace old cells. Who can control this?

        Yakov

        March 17, 2017 at 12:04 pm

      • My bad, it should be “*Abstinence by choice” as in temporarily. I was thinking in the context of “incel” (involuntary celibacy).

        DaddyFrank

        March 17, 2017 at 10:26 pm

  7. Getting married young is correct from an evolutionary standpoint.

    Regardless, of young people’s common sense and ability to judge for the long term, this is when they are most horny and fertile. This is when they can start early and have the most and the healthiest offspring.

    Postponing the small window of health and fertility in the name of civilizational constructs like so-called maturity, education, career building is nuts.

    fakeemail

    March 17, 2017 at 8:28 am

  8. Traditional Catholic circles that Thomas More would feel at home in are still the best chance most young people have to find a partner who wants to have a normal conventional married life.

    Greater Beta

    March 17, 2017 at 10:57 am

  9. Lion, have you given much thought to sugar babies? As a nerdy dude growing up, I’ve been having a blast with hot sugar babies, sorority chicks who want spending money.

    Happy to give advice if anyone is curious.

    Anon

    March 17, 2017 at 12:05 pm

    • I don’t have that much money.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 17, 2017 at 1:03 pm

    • This is interesting, but if you spend time and money with sugar babies, it takes away time and money you could spend on finding a real mate.

      Jjbees

      March 17, 2017 at 2:12 pm

      • Ruling out all sugar babies as potential mates is closed minded. (As an example, some of them just want to date successful guys and don’t even want money.) Also, they’re good practice in any case.

        Anon

        March 17, 2017 at 3:59 pm


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: