In praise of ties

They helped build a society that we are destroying

The first thing I notice when I watch a black-and-white TV show on one of the rerun networks is the ties. In the 1950s, every man wore a tie. The milkman wore a tie. The mailman wore a tie. The policeman wore a tie. Even Elvis wore a tie on occasion. Chuck Berry always wore a tie. Gas station attendants wore them. You could trust your car to the man who wore the star because he had a tie on. Men wore ties to ballgames because men were civilized.

Ties were important because they gave a sense of authority but ties also showed that a man wants to belong in society. As Benjamin Franklin said, “Eat to please thyself, but dress to please others.”

But gradually the ties came off. Comfort meant more than community. Men’s stores gave way to Sears and then Kmart and then Wal-Mart, which is now Walmart. The loss of ties — the loss of formality in interactions with strangers on the street — came with a price. When you stop wanting to please others, you begin to stop caring about others.

This makes for a lonely trip down that road to perdition. The people of Walmart know this all too well. In their native language, Walmart means hold my beer. Sam Walton wore ties. His heirs wear woke.

The 1950s were better than what we have today. Women stayed home and took care of their families while men went out and worked for their families. Marriage was the norm and the children were raised right. That was not my home life growing up, but my wife and I tried to do better for our kids, and now our son and his bride want to do better than we did for his kids. That is the way things should be.

One of my readers is an Orthodox priest and he forwarded a link to an article by Kirk Dunston about anthropologist J.D. Unwin, who studied 86 cultures: “Why Sexual Morality May be Far More Important than You Ever Thought.”

Dunston said:

1. Effect of sexual constraints: Increased sexual constraints, either pre- or post-nuptial, always led to increased flourishing of a culture. Conversely, increased sexual freedom always led to the collapse of a culture three generations later.

2. Single most influential factor: Surprisingly, the data revealed that the single most important correlation with the flourishing of a culture was whether pre-nuptial chastity was required or not. It had a very significant effect either way.

3. Highest flourishing of culture: The most powerful combination was pre-nuptial chastity coupled with “absolute monogamy.” Rationalist cultures that retained this combination for at least three generations exceeded all other cultures in every area, including literature, art, science, furniture, architecture, engineering, and agriculture. Only three out of the eighty-six cultures studied ever attained this level.

4. Effect of abandoning prenuptial chastity: When strict prenuptial chastity was no longer the norm, absolute monogamy, deism, and rational thinking also disappeared within three generations.

5. Total sexual freedom: If total sexual freedom was embraced by a culture, that culture collapsed within three generations to the lowest state of flourishing — which Unwin describes as “inert” and at a “dead level of conception” and is characterized by people who have little interest in much else other than their own wants and needs. At this level, the culture is usually conquered or taken over by another culture with greater social energy.

The list is much longer but it is that fifth item that concerns me. I was born in 1953. So was Playboy. With me, you got a 70-year-old boy who likes to write. With Playboy, you got total sexual freedom. The prudes knew what they were doing. Under Queen Victoria, England conquered the world. Under the Rolling Stones, the world conquers England.

What we lost was delineated by History Facts in its article, “Surprising Dating Etiquette From the 1950s.” The men in the accompanying photos wore ties on their dates.

What the article cited as surprises were:

1. Women Didn't Order for Themselves

2. Men Were Expected To Pick Up the Check

3. Family Approval Was of the Utmost Importance

4. Women Were Discouraged From Eating Certain Foods

5. “Going Steady” Was the Ultimate Goal

That fourth one was about the difficulty of eating fruits with pits in public in a ladylike manner. The fifth revealed what dating was all about.

The article said, “Going steady was a hallmark of 1950s dating. This term meant that a couple had agreed to date each other exclusively, taking a major step toward a more serious relationship — often with the intent to marry. Couples abided by specific rituals to symbolize their commitment, often exchanging class rings or letterman jackets if of school or college age.”

The reason they married was overwhelmingly to have and raise children. My Aunt Betty and Uncle Mike didn’t but her sisters (my mom and my Aunt Nancy) did. Their brother never married. On the other side of the family all five kids had children — 16 in total. Five of those first seven marriages (my parents shared one) became until death marriages. There were three second marriages and two became until death marriages as well.

People no longer date. They swipe. They hook up. Women no longer have husbands. They have baby daddies. Abortions and now transsexual butchery are further turning our populace into rutting animals. My guess is we are in the second generation stage.

After studying those 86 cultures, Unwin wrote:

“The history of these societies consists of a series of monotonous repetitions; and it is difficult to decide which aspect of the story is the more significant: the lamentable lack of original thought which in each case the reformers displayed, or the amazing alacrity with which, after a period of intense compulsory continence (sexual restraint), the human organism seizes the earliest opportunity to satisfy its innate desires in a direct or perverted manner. Sometimes a man has been heard to declare that he wishes both to enjoy the advantages of high culture and to abolish compulsory continence. The inherent nature of the human organism, however, seems to be such that these desires are incompatible, even contradictory. The reformer may be likened to the foolish boy who desires both to keep his cake and to consume it. 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.”

The devil has been offering sexual freedom since the days of Adam and Eve. The Bible was not written to chain women to a patriarchy but to make men step up and accept their responsibilities. That is what all those begats are about. You are not a baby daddy. You are a father and your first task is to marry the mother. Your second is to stay true to her.

Am I saying we should bring back chastity? How can I not say it? Of course. And blue laws too. I don’t want to hear any nonsense about how government cannot tell a business what to do when there literally are a million laws and regulations already.

Ban gambling. States should be ashamed of themselves for taking over the numbers racket and fleecing the poor — under the euphemism lottery.

Ban marijuana again because it leads to worse drug abuse. Think not? Oregon legalized marijuana in 2020 and five years later it decriminalized hard drugs.

As for booze, bring back the state liquor stores and encourage people to drink at bars because socialization is good for man.

The Lord gave us the Ten Commandments not for Him but for man to live a better life. And part of that better life is dressing for others. Ben Franklin got that right as he did so many other things. A dress code works. We dropped that for teachers and now look at what we got: Mister Z Cup, shop teacher.

Oh, great googa-looga.

If ties were good enough for the 1950s, why are they not good enough for us?