Corruption and sexual freedom

>>2889484
There is nothing wrong with male sexual freedom, women however ruin everything when they have sexual freedom.

Greeks were fucking men allover the place and yet still had a stable society but women are destroying the family unit and causing chaos now that they are free.

>>2889484
> downfalled after beeing too corrupt and sexually free other than the Roman Empire

As someone who knows something about the period.

The Roman Empire gradually became far less sexually liberal as it moved from paganism towards Christianity.

Corruption didn't actually increase, things that we consider corruption were the cultural norm for the entire Roman period. Bureaucracy did increase however.

>>2889484
Britain

>>2889513
wtf are you talking about ?
>Naming your horse as a personal consul
> Stubbing every other Ruler to take his place and get murdered again
> Pallace orgies
>incest

Calling this normal . ok buddy

File: Propaganda.jpg (126KB, 530x446px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 530x446px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWM4bJNpch0

>>2889549
normal is relative to culture

Ottoman governors became pretty corrupt in the later centuries if i recall, but they were also around for 700 years

>>2889505
FPBP. Basically all problems can always be traced back to women somehow.

>>2889484
The white civilization.

>>2889569
>>2889505
Are you guys just completely unaware of how insane you sound to those who are uninitiated to /pol/?

OP poses a question looking for specific examples regarding a specific topic and like fucking clockwork you /pol/ buttholes come in and post some ridiculous sweeping generalizations that not only don't make any sense but also completely fucking misses the mark of the original question asked.

>women however ruin everything when they have sexual freedom.
prove it

File: 1492316055493.jpg (29KB, 342x358px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 342x358px

>>2889586
Relax, cunt. It's just banter.

>other than the Roman Empire
Rome's decline is unrelated to corruption or sexual freedom. Roman upper class men were corrupt and sexually promiscuous from Rome's rise to fall. It is the same with every other society so there are no examples to give you.

I am not for or against sexual freedom, just stating facts.

>>2889588
how convenient

>>2889593
You are saying that there are no historical examples which shows that sexual liberalism and corruption is bad for the society ?

>>2889607
>sexual liberalism and corruption is bad for the society ?
spooky

File: Aristofanes.jpg (11KB, 209x300px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 209x300px

>>2889586
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assemblywomen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z760XNy4VM

>>2889613
>Here's my chance to explain my thoughts and challenge the other person's argument
>jk lol I'm gonna copy and paste this /pol/ go-to response

I'd say I'm surprised but I'm not

>>2889607
Concerning what OP said specifically they were unrelated to the downfall of society.

If OP is looking for a correlation, Rome is a bad example since it fell after the Edict of Milan and the spread of Christian monogamy. Note that correlation does not imply causation in any case and I am not saying Christianity caused the fall of Rome. If OP is just searching for a correlation and doesn't care whether there was any causal link he should make that clear.

Corruption has a direct effect on the running of a polity so it is more relevant. However you would have to demonstrate that corruption was relatively higher than rival civilizations or the past and take into account changing circumstances to prove something changed. The 4th century army was larger than the 1st in response to raids yet populations had declined. What effect did this have on the state? Could the state's reaction to the threat be confused with corruption increasing? If you believe corruption was higher, what changed? Was Rome at the time of Ricimer inherently more corrupt than Rome at the time of Nero? Did officials just randomly decide to take more risks when embezzling funds and defrauding the citizens than usual without any pressure to do so? Why?

>>2889549
Those sort of things happened centuries before the adoption of Christianity and the fall of the Roman Empire. You know, they mostly happened while Rome was at its height.

File: Titus Livius01.jpg (57KB, 675x458px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 675x458px

>>2889729
Why people become more corrupt ? Power maybe ? Livy himself noticed and conclude that power corrupts.
Check pic related

File: apathy.jpg (17KB, 352x239px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 352x239px

>>2889753
Exactly. The downfall begins from the very heights and slowly moves to the end.

You people are saying that there is no correlataion of liberalism and a dying society . Whaaat ?
Check pic related

>>2889778
>power corrupts

Wow that's a new development in historiography, tell me more

File: 79007-tap-66845.jpg (12KB, 305x225px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 305x225px

>>2889639
>everything is /pol/

>>2889837
it seems so obvious to you now doesn't it ?

>>2889639
>everything i don't like is /pol/
christ, grow up

>>2889848
I'm not sure why you find that implication so amusing when it's true. Since summer 2015 when the election started up every board has in-effect become /pol/

>>2889586
Back to tumblr my fellow estrogen enriched human.

>>2889903
not an argument

>>2889889
In summer of 2015, and you've been seeing /pol/ everywhere since huh. Thats a little uh, paranoid.

>>2889909
Not looking for one your a woman its a waste of time arguing with you dumb cunt.

>>2889794
Your causality is all fucked up in the sense that the Late Roman Empire was probably the most puritan it had ever been. Dying societies are usually quite reactionary for obvious reasons.

Also that quote is falsely attributed to Aristotle, stop propagating your shitty propaganda.

>>2889914
not him but he's right

>>2889947
I am not talking about the late Roman Empire. Of course they had to become more close as the times were tough. The problem begins at the height of the power. Whats so difficult to understand about that ?
Also puritanism has nothing to do here. Learn your facts boy

>>2889974
>I am not talking about the late Roman Empire.
Okay sure, let's not talk about the Roman Empire that declined and collapsed, let's talk about the Roman Empire that was kicking ass and fucking ass all over the Mediterranean then. Clearly sodomy was to blame, they would have had more time for kicking if they hadn't spent so much time fucking.

>The problem begins at the height of the power.
And when does it end? It didn't end after they were bitten by the God-bug and went full moralism, reversed gears, renounced sodomy and adultery, curbed their addiction to welfare and slavery, demanded that every woman stay chaste and cover her head etc etc.
Why not just engage in mindless hedonism if your civilization is automatically doomed regardless of subsequent efforts?

>Learn your facts boy
I'd be surprised if I wasn't older than you, kid.

>>2889931
>your
>no arguments

comedy gold

>>2889914
paranoid? yeah I'm paranoid and delusional and it's not like every fucking board has become /pol/-lite. Give me a fucking break newfag

>>2889931
>you dumb cunt.
ad-hominem not an argument. Try again kid

Weimar was a clusterfuck, sex included.

>>2889974
You know when you can just tell by the way someone talks that they don't have a fucking clue? Making sweeping ambiguous statements and appealing to how obviously right they are as a reason for why they don't have to explain themselves or back up anything they've said. Your post is a good example of that

>>2890066
>not knowing obvious human nature and behavior
>want sources of well documented facts known for every intellectual person
>too bored too look


wow

>>2890092
You know when somebody tries to save face by replying but just digs themselves a deeper hole? Your post is a good example of that

>>2889566
I don't think they were more sexually free except that they started allowing Janissaries to have families though, which would be a step up from older Islamic practices of filling the ranks of officials and elite guards with perfidious eunuchs who ended up corrupt anyway.

>>2890122
>using a totally wrong paradigm
>Not being able to understand basic human logic

wow again

>>2890145
not him, but you're going to have to explain what you mean when you say "basic human logic"

>>2890145
>obvious human nature
>basic human logic
>well documented facts known for every intellectual person [sic]
Gee, with such irrefutable evidence on your side it's a wonder your position is not the academic consensus. Must be the Jews.

>>2889484
> sexually free other than the Roman Empire

Sexual freedom in Rome started with hellenization and the ascendance of Cornelii, around 2nd Punic War. They've been fucking young boys for the entire empire. After christianization they've stopped and a hundred years later the empire fell.

>Name 3 or more great historical societies which downfalled
T'ang China had a great degree of sexual freedom and it fell. But all Chinese dynasties fell and the T'ang are still regarded as the best.

The Mughals were founded by a bisexual poet and opium addict. Their greatest ruler Akbar was incredibly liberal for the time. Shit started hitting the fan when the Islamic orthodox Aurangzeb took the throne.

In fact, IIRC by Oswald Spengler's standards, moral puritanism is a later phase of social downfall than sexual liberalism. This is not to be confused with the initial simplicity of customs of great civilisations, that later stages try to return to. But it's pointless to try desu.

I feel like trying to chart any sort of linear course on Roman sexual attitudes is a very foolish endeavour. Augustus and Majorian were both very conservative in regards to sex and families and they lived 400 years apart.

I have no idea where this "Late Rome was decadent and corrupt" meme comes from but I'd like it to stop.

>>2890179
>I have no idea where this "Late Rome was decadent and corrupt" meme comes from but I'd like it to stop.

It's part of pop culture and it's not going away. Hedonism Bot is the popular conception of roman society

File: gibbonx.jpg (21KB, 309x342px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 309x342px

>>2890179
Most misconceptions about Roman society can be traced back to the writings of a certain beady eyed Anglo Helvetophile

OP here .

So can we say from historical point of view that sexual liberalism leads to the fall of society or no?

>>2890197
Apparently not.

>>2890197
No - societies change over time due to trends and forces greater than whos fucking who. Also come on, you really think there's periods of high fuckage and low fuckage? Everybody's boning the same as they've always been it's just popular attitudes regarding it change.

>>2890224
i guess you are right

>>2889513
>The Roman Empire gradually became far less sexually liberal as it moved from paganism towards Christianity.
This, likely the religion of peace and prudery cucked the Romans from sexual Tyrannosaurs into a bunch of slack jawed faggots.

I would never point sexual freedom as the sole reason empires fall.

Sexual freedom only represents part of a greater factor that contributes to the downfall of empires, which would be, in my conception, a "sense of comfort". People who live under the umbrella of powerful States sense that they are the vanguard of morals and ethics in the world and can, therefore, dictate what can or cannot be done. Being more sexually adventurous is just one of the things those people do when they have these kinds of liberties.

Of course, they do not understand that having a strong sense of family, being monogamous and focusing your attention on raising children with the same values you have and your ancestors had is good to keep order and a sense of belonging under a specific State. How could they know that? They never had to fight to estabilish a strong State on the first place.

Rome did not fell because some men sucked other men's cocks. It fell because an entire civilization felt that they alone knew how to fight, build, live and die. They disregarded the fact that there were others out there, and therefore they should keep on their toes and teach their children to do the same.

The mongol empire fell because they became soft and felt that they alone ruled the world.

The british empire fell because they became soft and felt that they alone ruled the world.

The first persian empire fell because they became soft and felt that they alone ruled the world.

The _________ empire fell because they became soft and felt that they alone ruled the world.

You get the idea. Now think about how americans feel about the world. Think about how they take for granted that, for example, I'm forced to learn their language to comunicate, and not the other way around. We can only guess what happens next.

>>2890236
no you don't guess he's right, he is right

>>2890274
what incredible oversimplifications

>>2890278

I have no way of building a strong argument for my case in a post of an anonymous imageboard. It would take me an entire book and a dozen thesis to connect my ideas with facts. I can't and won't do that. Oversimplifications are all we have here in /his/.

But if you think you can counter-argue, present an alternative. What makes empires fall?

>>2890327
a mix of migration, famine, economics and politics. Certainly not the good times weak men meme

>>2890349
>implying migrations, and famine aren't the result of the political and economic decisions made by weak men

I find it hilarious the way cucks get so triggered by the idea that their moral laxity has consequences, and you can't just coast through life as an effete fop in a romper without being taken advantage of.

>>2890440
speaking with such verbosity of grandiose nonsense makes you come across as an asperger

spit it out autist what are you actually trying to say? Or are you unable to communicate by means other than parroting alex jones doomsaying?

>>2889889
Lol he's a ,/pol/ fag ,for sure but dude you are too new. /his/ just came out in the summer 15 and /pol/ spilling to other threads has BEEN a problem even before that.