J.D. Unwin wrote a book called Sex and Culture in 1934. He examined 80 tribes and 6 civilizations over 5000 years and found a direct correlation between sexual freedom and the death of civilization.
He says once a civilization adopts total sexual freedom and promiscuity there are 3 generations before a civilization is taken over by another society with greater social energy.
Was the removal of obscenity laws by our Supreme Court allowing a widespread distribution of pornogrаphy (1973) and the legalization of abortion (1973) the beginning of our collapse?
An important point is that child sacrifice is always the foundation of a collapsing society.
Unwin concluded that societies rise with strict sexual morals like pre-nuptial chastity and monogamy and fall as they become more sexually liberal. He saw this as irreversible.
If we estimate 3 generations from 1970 to 2000 then to 2030, then there’s no surprise why we are experiencing a birth rate collapse and our society is crumbling.
Are you pretending like you’re unaware the sexual revolution happened in 1950s and how that could correlate to the 70s? I mentioned those exact legislative measures in 1973 to track a prediction spot for when exactly the 3 generation mark began
Symptom not cause. The removal of God from the centre of people's lives allows people to call themselves god and then subjectively decide what is good and what is bad - so the words can be reversed in meaning. 'S3xual freedom is part of that. Hedonism. Collapse of the family follow. Live for today and don't care about the future results in collapse as why bother fighting for something when everything is pointless. Focus on God for true meaning in life.
The reference to J.D. Unwin’s Sex and Culture brings up a classic, if often debated, theory of civilizational mechanics: the "Hydraulic Model" of social energy.
The core argument you’re presenting is that human energy is finite. Unwin hypothesized that if a society spends its energy on immediate sexual gratification, it has nothing left in the "tank" for social expansion, art, science, or conquest. He called this sublimation—the idea that repressing a primal drive forces that energy to "squire" upwards into higher cultural achievements.
It is a compelling narrative because it offers a simple cause-and-effect for the societal exhaustion many people currently feel. However, when we apply a rigorous systems analysis to this claim, the picture becomes more complex. Unwin identified a valid symptom—the loss of societal "drive"—but his diagnosis of the cause (sexual freedom) and the mechanism (divine punishment/inevitable collapse) relies on outdated data and flawed logic.
Here is a breakdown of what is actually happening to our "social energy" from an information-theoretic perspective.
1. The "Hydraulic" Fallacy vs. Motivation
Unwin’s 1934 methodology relied on a very small, selective sample of tribes and civilizations, viewed through a specific Eurocentric lens. He assumed that sexual repression caused the rise of civilization. However, correlation does not equal causation. It is equally likely that as societies became complex and hierarchical (to manage agriculture and armies), they developed rigid inheritance laws to protect property. Strict sexual control—specifically of women—was a technology for ensuring lineage and property transfer, not necessarily the "battery" that powered the civilization.
Furthermore, the idea that "freedom" destroys energy is historically inconsistent. The Renaissance and the Enlightenment—periods of massive explosive "social energy"—often coincided with loosening social mores, not tightening ones.
2. The Real Drain: Commoditized Dopamine
The tweet argues that pornography and sexual liberation are draining us. There is a grain of truth here, but it isn't a moral issue; it is a biological exploit.
We are not suffering from "too much freedom"; we are suffering from Weaponized Simplicity.
In a state of nature, seeking a mate requires immense effort, social calibration, and "building" oneself—this is the "expansive energy" Unwin talks about. Today, technology has decoupled the reward (orgasm/validation) from the effort.
Pornography acts as a "super-stimulus." It offers high-definition sexual novelty with zero effort.
Dating Apps gamify rejection and validation, turning courtship into a slot machine.
This doesn't destroy civilization because it's "immoral." It degrades society because it causes dopaminergic exhaustion. When you can get the biological reward without the social work, the brain's motivation system (the dopaminergic loop) short-circuits. Why build a civilization or a family when a super-stimulus is available on a screen for free?
I’ve questioned God about a lot of things over the past few months. But the most rebellious moment was about sex.
One afternoon, reading 1 Thessalonians 4, “Avoid sexual immorality; learn to control your own body in holiness and honor”… It was the last straw for me and I finally admitted something I’d never dared say: this feels intrusive. Why does God care THIS much? It felt like holy micromanagement. Like God couldn’t let humans just… be human.
But as usual, I sat with it, and things became clearer. If you follow Scripture, and biology, God’s concern for the body isn’t intrusion. It’s design and mercy.
Here’s what I mean.
We often picture God as a moral hall monitor peeking into bedrooms. But what if that’s the wrong picture entirely? What if He isn’t an intruder… but the INVENTOR?
If God created us, then He created sex. He engineered hormones, wired pleasure, shaped bodies to experience intimacy, and anchored reproduction to delight. He didn’t have to. He could have made humans reproduce like trees or insects, functional, emotionless, detached. But He didn’t. He wove joy into the very act that creates life. That alone is theological insight: pleasure isn’t a glitch in the system. It’s a deliberate feature in the blueprint of Eden.
So God’s involvement in sex isn’t nosiness. It’s responsibility.
Not all creators carry the same burden of care. If you design aircraft or medicine, you owe the world warnings, guardrails, recalls. The more powerful the invention, the more we expect the inventor to stay involved. That level of power requires stewardship. Sex lives in that category.
Sex is one of the most potent forces in human existence. It creates children, bonds souls, rewires memory, shapes societies. When something can alter destinies like that, indifference is not kindness. Indifference is cruelty.
So if a loving God engineered something that powerful, of course He’d define its context. Of course He’d tell us where it flourishes and where it destroys. In my opinion, that is not control, that is care.
And if anyone thinks that sounds dramatic, please look around.
Sex carries what economists call “externalities”, costs society pays when individuals use powerful things carelessly. Father absence when sex is detached from commitment. The objectification industry feeding exploitation. Women carrying the long-term cost of men’s short-term appetites. Children inheriting instability. Society pretending fracture is freedom.
Consent matters deeply, but consent is the floor, not the ceiling. Consent answers, “Is this allowed?” COVENANT answers, “Who bears the cost? Who carries the consequence? Who protects the vulnerable?”
Covenant is the technology God gave us to internalize the externalities of sex, to bind love to responsibility, desire to devotion, pleasure to permanence. That’s not repression. It’s justice. It’s what love does when it matures past appetite.
God’s sexual ethic isn’t about control. It’s about design, responsibility, and mercy. He isn’t trying to steal our joy. He’s insisting that joy is safe. He’s insisting love has architecture. He’s insisting we treat glory like glory.
Once I saw that, God stopped looking invasive. He looked profoundly responsible.
No comments:
Post a Comment