Pulling Out the Beams

Download Print-Friendly Version

I’ll start with a picture that makes sense in any big family: a big, sturdy house that your grandparents built with their bare hands. The foundation is thick. The beams are solid. Then one generation comes along and says, “We inherited this place. Let’s knock down a few walls, open up the living room, and maybe throw some parties.” And because the bones of the house are strong, nothing collapses right away. In fact, it can feel amazing: more freedom, less shame, fewer rules.

But here’s the catch: a house can survive a lot of bad decisions when it’s still living off the strength of the original build. If you keep pulling out beams, if you let water sit in the walls, if you stop doing maintenance, the collapse doesn’t happen on day one. It happens later. Sometimes it happens when your kids are grown. Sometimes it happens when your grandkids are moving in.

That, in plain English, is the warning at the heart of J. D. Unwin’s theory.

Unwin’s Argument: Societies Run on “Stored” Discipline

Unwin was an early-20th-century social anthropologist who tried to answer a blunt question: why do some societies surge with creativity, conquest, science, and organization… and then lose that edge? In Sex and Culture, he reviewed a wide range of societies and focused on one variable that, frankly, most modern people would rather treat as “private”: sexual norms. He tracked what he called “sexual opportunity”—basically, how much a society allows sex outside of strict commitments and how strongly it enforces limits before and after marriage. 

His core claim is not subtle. Unwin argues that when a society places a real, socially enforced check on sexual impulses, the resulting tension often gets “converted” into what he calls social and mental energy—drive, ambition, discipline, long-term thinking, building, exploring, inventing. He says psychological research at the time pointed to this connection, and he treats sexual restraint as an “indispensable contributory factor” to high social energy: extend sexual freedom, and energy drops; restrict it, and energy rises.

Then comes the line Unwin is most famous for, because it states the trade-off in one sentence:

“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.” 

In Unwin’s framework, you can, for a time, enjoy the “advantages of high culture” while also “abolish[ing] compulsory continence,” but you’re basically trying to “keep [your] cake and consume it.” 

And while Unwin’s explanation for the phenomenon—pent-up sexual energy is spent on greater cultural pursuits—is out of favor, his observation that the phenomenon occurs over and over in civilization after civilization continues to hold up. 

The Three-Generation Delay

Here’s where Unwin gets especially relevant to modern America: he insists the consequences are delayed.

He warns that “the social energy… displayed at any time… depends not only upon the sexual opportunity it enjoys but also upon that enjoyed by the two preceding generations,” and that “it takes at least three generations for an extension or a limitation of sexual opportunity to have its full cultural effect.” If a society wants to control its cultural destiny by changing sexual opportunity, “such decrease or increase will appear in the third generation.” 

So the first generation that loosens the rules may feel fine—even successful. Why? Because they were raised by parents and grandparents who still had tighter norms. They still carry “moral muscle memory”: habits of commitment, delayed gratification, duty, and sacrifice. They can break the rules and still function because their character was formed under the old system.

But their children don’t inherit the old system. They inherit the new one.

This is the uncomfortable moral math Unwin forces onto the table: a society can spend its moral capital for a while. It just can’t do it forever. And the people who cash the check are often not the same people who pay the bill.

Why the Sexual Revolution Fits the Three-Generation Pattern

Now let’s talk about the United States.

America didn’t begin as a sexually “free” society. Even with hypocrisy (and there was plenty), the public ideal was clear: marriage first, fidelity in marriage, children inside marriage, and a religious story that framed sex as powerful and therefore bounded.

Then came the sexual revolution of the 1960s and the decades that followed: the normalization of premarital sex, the celebration of “no strings attached,” the idea that commitment is optional but pleasure is a right, and the steady uncoupling of sex, marriage, and childbearing. You don’t need to insult anyone to admit that the norms shifted fast.

If Unwin is right about the lag, we should expect a timeline like this:

• Gen 1 loosens norms but still largely runs on old discipline (they were raised in the old world).
• Gen 2 grows up in transition—conflicted, divided standards.
• Gen 3 grows up with the new norms as the default. The old habits aren’t inherited; they’re museum pieces.

That lands us roughly in the 2000s and 2010s as the era when the deeper “cultural effect” should be obvious. And look at the family structure numbers—because family structure is where sexual norms impact real life.

In 1960, 5.3% of U.S. births were to unmarried women. By 1990, it was 28.0%, and by 1999 it was 33.0%. In recent data, the CDC reports 40.0% of all U.S. births were to unmarried women in 2023. Meanwhile, the U.S. Census Bureau reports married-couple households made up 71% of households in 1970, but 47% in 2022. These are not tiny shifts. That is a different civilization pattern.

You can argue about causes, pointing to economics, technology, globalization, and politics. But Unwin helps explain why so many problems cluster together: when sex is “free,” marriage becomes fragile; when marriage becomes fragile, childrearing becomes unstable; when childrearing becomes unstable, the next generation arrives less equipped for long-term discipline; when long-term discipline collapses, institutions rot. That is how a society “goes downhill” without a single barbarian at the gate. And we are already seeing its effects in politics, but also in culture, such as the dramatic decline in original music. 

“But I’m doing fine.” 

Here’s the line that hits hardest, especially for people like me who’ve watched cousins run the whole spectrum from church kids to party kids and back again: You can reject your religious heritage and still feel okay. You can be a good person while living in a permissive sexual culture. You can build a successful career and raise good children.

Unwin would shrug and say: of course. That’s generation one or two. You are still spending what you inherited. 

But what happens when your children have no inherited picture of covenant, sacrifice, and restraint—only consent and impulse? What happens when the default cultural script is not “build a family” but “maximize experiences”? What happens when children are shaped by pornography and other distorted messages before they are taught their divine worth and the power of righteous boundaries?

Moral values are not just personal choices; they are intergenerational infrastructure, inherited wisdom. These lessons are personal for those who see their children reject covenants and moral code but remain stable because the inherited moral structure is still there. It is their children or grandchildren who will ultimately pay the price, although those generations can return of their own accord. 

Can the Trend Reverse? Unwin Says Yes—at a Price

Unwin is not fatalistic. He explicitly writes: “All these processes are reversible.” He even describes societies that tightened norms and regained energy. His example of the Arabs is blunt: he calls them “an authenticated instance” of a people who moved from permitting premarital intercourse to instituting premarital chastity, reducing sexual opportunity, and then displaying expansive energy. 

But here’s the part modern ears need to hear: Unwin doesn’t treat reversal as a vibes-based “be nicer” campaign. He treats it as structural. If you want the energy back, you have to rebuild the discipline system. And then you have to wait for the third generation.

Even more interesting: Unwin argues the old civilizational pattern relied on women being treated as legal nonentities, and that this injustice helped break the system. He draws a clear inference: if a future society wants to keep sexual opportunity at a minimum long-term, “the sexes must first be placed on a footing of complete legal equality,” and then the society must organize itself so that restraint is “possible and tolerable.” 

So the prescription is not “go backwards to female subjugation.” It’s the opposite: equal dignity, plus serious restraint—a moral culture that demands more of men and women, not less.

What Should the U.S. Actually Do? 

If we take Unwin seriously, then moral renewal is not a slogan. It’s policy, culture, and habit—starting in families, reinforced by institutions.

Here are five concrete shifts America should make:

1. Rebuild “marriage first” as a public norm (not merely a private preference). Not by criminalizing people. By re-normalizing the idea that sex belongs inside a committed, durable union—and that the default path to adulthood is building a stable family, not sampling endless dating options.
2. Protect children from sexualization and pornography as a baseline public health goal.  A culture that floods kids with explicit content is teaching them a sexual worldview before they have the maturity to resist it. If sexual restraint is “infrastructure,” then childhood innocence is the construction zone. (This is where parents, schools, tech companies, and lawmakers all have a role.) States passing laws requiring IDs to access online pornography are moving in the right direction.
3. Make it easier to form and keep stable marriages—especially for the working class.  A marriage culture collapses when young adults can’t afford housing, can’t plan, and can’t imagine a future. Economic stability doesn’t replace morality, but it supports it. Unwin knew restraint has to be “tolerable,” not just idealistic. The housing crisis is a morality crisis.
4. Treat divorce as a last resort, not a casual exit—while protecting abuse victims fiercely. If commitment is always provisional, people stop building lives that require patience and forgiveness. We can defend the safety of vulnerable spouses and admit that “divorce by mutual consent” as a norm corrodes the inherited discipline that makes civilizations stable.
5. Recover the religious and moral formation that taught self-control—and stop pretending we can outsource it to therapists and HR departments.  I’m not saying everyone must be religious. I’m saying a society that discards its moral tradition cannot act surprised when it loses moral habits within a few generations. The lack of religious faith can be tolerated without being normalized. Unwin’s model says the loss shows up later—right when we’re tempted to call it “mysterious.” 

You Don’t Keep the Benefits You Refuse to Pass Down

Unwin’s theory is offensive to modern pride because it suggests limits are not the enemy of freedom; they’re the source of the kind of freedom that builds things. He doesn’t say sexual restraint makes people nicer. He says it makes societies energetic—capable of long effort, real sacrifice, and deep culture. 

The United States is living through the delayed bill of the sexual revolution—not because every individual choice is evil, but because a civilization is more than individuals. It’s a chain of formation.

We really can choose “permissive living” in our one life and still feel fine, especially when we were formed by those who created the foundation. That’s the danger. The house still stands—so we assume the beams were unnecessary. But within three generations, the foundation we quietly depended on is gone. 

If Unwin is right, the question in front of America isn’t “How do we feel about sex?” The question is: Do we want the kind of people—and the kind of future—that only disciplined love can produce?