Oxford anthropologist J.D. Unwin studied 86 societies and civilizations to see why some collapse and others don't.
What did he find?
That sexual debauchery leads to the collapse of a civilization within 3 generations. (thread) 🧵
Unwin defined four categories of cultures. Each is differentiated in its pursuit of art, engineering, literature, agriculture, etc.
1. Dead - these cultures are only focused on the day-to-day needs of life. They don't care about higher questions and so do not progress.
2. Superstitious - these cultures develop beliefs that help them explain the natural world. This can be represented in the special treatment of the dead.
3. Deistic - characterized by belief in gods or a god. This requires more imagination and higher-order thinking
4. Rationalistic - characterized by rational thinking. This was the category with the most human flourishing.
Next, Unwin defined sexual ethics and restraint into two categories.
Unwin's two categories of sexual ethics and restraint:
- Prenuptial - this was measured on a scale from complete sexual freedom to "remain a virgin until married."
- Postnuptial - how easy is it to get a divorce? How many wives can a man have? How faithful are the women expected to be?
What did he find?
The single most influential factor in a civilization's longevity and success is prenuptial chastity.
If people were expected to remain virgins until marriage, the culture was more likely to have all of the markers of human flourishing.
They were more likely to be an "advanced" civilization.
What was the best combination, resulting in a culture that exceeds other cultures?
You probably won't be surprised.
Prenuptial chastity combined with absolute monogamy. Absolute monogamy means one spouse for life.
Why was prenuptial chastity the most important?
In cultures where virginity was no longer expected, within three generations, the following disappeared:
- absolute monogamy
- deism
- rational thinking
Without prenuptial chastity, people usually regress into the lowest "dead" category as they become interested only in their own wants and needs.
They become slaves to their appetites.
Cultures that have embraced total sexual freedom collapse within three generations.
They might limp along for a time, powered by some momentum, but eventually, they are conquered or taken over by another culture.
In the West, the sexual revolution started in the late 1960's. Three generations (~40 years each) from then would put us in the 2070s.
Are we on the way to collapse?
The evidence points to "yes."
You cannot have both sexual freedom and progress.
Unwin: "Any human society is free to choose either to display great energy or to enjoy sexual freedom; the evidence is that it cannot do both for more than one generation."
Sexual freedom unleashes all sorts of demons on a society.
Couple it with modern medicine, which basically baptizes sexual debauchery with antibiotics and abortion, and you have an acceleration of collapse.
Slaves are too busy having orgies to be truly productive.
It turns out that marriage is not just a private contract between two individuals.
It has ramifications for the entire community and culture.
How a society views and treats marriage determines whether or not it will keep things like indoor plumbing and modern dentistry.
What two (or more) people do together in the bedroom is not, indeed, a private matter.
Writ large, it has consequences for that entire civilization.
Likewise, porn is cultural cancer.
It rots the bones.
A healthy civilization, or one that wants to progress, will want to eradicate it or push it to the fringes of society. Porn leads to other debaucheries.
Looking at the current state of our culture, is there any hope to avoid collapse? It looks bleak.
Even recently, close to a pandemic, we've even people engaging in orgies and other risky sexual behavior, despite a new disease called monkeypox.
They really are slaves to their passions.
The good news: a culture can be turned around. Massive repentance can bear fruit.
But based on the data, it also takes three generations for improvements to start showing up.
Sexual ethics is a powerful rudder, but it is still a rudder on a huge, lumbering ship. Better start turning the wheel.
If you liked this thread, subscribe to the Foundation Father newsletter.
Practical tips on fatherhood, masculinity, and homeschooling sent every week.
"But how will they learn to socialize with other kids?"
This is the number 1 objection to homeschooling that always comes up.
Let's talk about what government school "socialization" ACTUALLY looks like vs. reality. 🧵
Government school socialization:
- Sit silently with same-age peers for 6+ hours
- Ask permission to use the bathroom
- Speak only when allowed
- Endure highest statistical chance of physical violence
- Get in trouble for talking to others
That counts as "social" for prison.
The idea that cramming 30 kids of the exact same age into a room for 6 hours daily under constant supervision somehow prepares them for "real life" is bizarre when you actually think about it.
When in adult life will this environment ever be replicated?
Boys and girls thrive in different educational environments. Homeschooling is ideal for your daughters—potentially through high school.
But your sons? Eventually, they might need something else. Maybe even the battles that come naturally with public school...
For daughters, homeschooling creates a nurturing, domestic environment. They can flourish under maternal guidance, developing at their own pace, protected from the indoctrination machine of public education that seeks to corrupt them.
But boys?
They need to test themselves.
They need conflict.
They need to enter the arena and prove their mettle.
They need to get out from under motherly smothering.
Homeschooled boys without an outlet often become either dangerously passive or destructively rebellious.
Patriarchy was never the problem. The rejection of "father rule" is why we're drowning in laws, surveillance, and state control.
A healthy, robust, accountable patriarchy protected our freedoms more than it restricted them. It protected women more than it oppressed them. 👇
When fathers are removed from their role as protectors and the authority that comes with that responsibility, people don't become "free."
They become wards of the state.
And the state doesn't love you. It only knows how to punish.
Look around.
The welfare apparatus. Public education indoctrinating children. Militarized police. All replacing what fathers once provided: protection, guidance, and boundaries with purpose.
You are 100% responsible. No scapegoats. No luxury of blaming other teachers for not doing their jobs.
Zero excuses. Just you.
And there's more bad news.
Parents who choose homeschooling aren't escaping educational problems. They're trading them for a mirror that reflects their own flaws.
Your kids' biggest educational obstacle might be staring back at you in the bathroom mirror each morning
Your impatience, laziness, and apathy don't disappear when you homeschool. They're amplified. You'll have front-row IMAX tickets to watch your own flaws shape your children in real-time, in high definition, 24/7.
Taking responsibility in an effeminate age like ours is a superpower.
Some people don't know what "taking responsibility" means, however, because they never had a father or anyone else who loved them enough to teach them.
So here is how to take responsibility. 🧵
1. Remember that you are not a helpless, incompetent person.
Things don’t just happen to you while you stare blank-eyed with your mouth open, using all of your brain power to remember how to breathe.
You have agency.
2. keep these questions in mind:
“What role did I play in this situation, or how did I help form the system I am in?”
“What is one thing I can do right now to start fixing it, no matter how small?”
Here are some examples of applying these questions.
Daniel Everett is a celebrated linguist who started off as a missionary but eventually abandoned his Christian faith.
Why?
He realized that the Gospel would ruin the cultures he ministered to, leading to his growing doubt about Christianity.
But what culture would it ruin? 🧵
Everett was afraid his work would ruin the Pirahã's concept of truth and how it affected their language.
This same tribe forced alcohol down an infant's throat to kill it, an infant that Everett and his wife were attempting to nurse back to health. That was the Pirahã’s truth.
So Everett learned the wrong lesson.
Some cultures *should* be ruined. They are not all equal. While it is possible to "plunder the Egyptians," as Augustine put it, we should not look with longing and awe at the pots of meat back in Egypt, wishing to gorge ourselves.