One of the less well-regarded Schwarzenegger movies is Running Man (1987). It plays in the late 2010s and predicts a cruel, authoritarian dystopia in which there is total surveillance and human life is worth very little. People who get rightly or wrongly accused of a crime may have to fight for their survival in the eponymous TV show in the movie universe. These are basically modern gladiatorial fights.
One prediction the movie gets right is the framing of political opponents. It almost looks like a blue-print for leftists. On the other hand, the prediction regarding sexual mores is completely off. At one point, a woman gets framed in the worst possible way, and the TV show host claims that she has been having “sexual relationships with two, sometimes three different men per year”:
This scene made me laugh pretty hard. Right next to Democrat politicians, there is arguably no group more degenerate than the Hollywood elites. Yet, these people thought, by extrapolating from then current-year 1987, which surely was already much more degenerate than the rest of the country, to 2017 or so that a woman banging two or three guys a year was a detestable whore.
Today, however, society went so far down the drain that a woman who “only” bangs two or three guys a year would be seen as comparatively chaste. In fact, plenty of guys would not even bat an eye if they heard that some chick occasionally gets railed by two or three different guys on a weekend. It would probably only raise eyebrows only if she got banged by three guys at once.
If you wanted to remake Running Man today and keep the aforementioned scene intact, you would only get the same effect as thirty years ago if the female lead was claimed to have sex with 100 to 150 different guys a year. However, blue-pilled cucks have also become a lot more tolerant of women whoring around. If you take this into account, the number would probably have to go up to 300 to 500 guys a year. No, I do not think that this is much of an exaggeration. You should keep in mind that it was not too long ago that the expectation was that women did not have any premarital sex at all. Today, guys consider themselves lucky if she has only had about a dozen guys before marriage. We even have terms like “semi-virgins” or “near-virgins”, which should be considered comical as virginity is a binary condition, i.e. she either is a virgin or not. If a woman was not a virgin in the past, she was not considered worthy of marriage, regardless of whether she has had sex with one guy or 20.
Running Man looks almost quaint in hindsight. We currently live in a world that is much more dystopian than even Hollywood degenerates could dream up in the 1980s, which is quite remarkable. On a more positive note, I think that we are getting close to a breaking point, so in another thirty or forty years, people may again think that a woman banging two or three different guys a year is nothing but a harlot.
Aaron, have you scene Rollerball?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollerball_(1975_film)
If anything, it seems like Running Man was a remake of that movie and the female lead was added to give us all some eye candy. In my mind, I think Rollerball was more subversive as you have a man being pushed out of a game because he is “too good” and the corporate elites are losing control of the narrative. IE individualism vs. corporate controlled collectivism. This gets washed out of the Arnold movie as he is made too look like a vary moral person for refusing too shoot unarmed civilians. I would even say that the Arnold movie fits better into a left wing world view whereas Rollerball is a right wingers dystopian future-loss of autonomy/will to power over one’s destiny. Left winger would see James Kahn as an egotistical prick who refused too go along and collect a fat retirement cheque. And Arnie gets the darkie though fit promiscuous women in the end so they can have mixed kiddies like he did with his fat nanny.
I have never even heard of Rollerball. Regarding the female lead in Running Man: I think she was just added for the sake of diversity. Thus, she is a non-white woman taking a white woman’s role. If not, then there would be the racist undertone that non-white women are sexually more promiscuous. Hollywood quite frequently sets up such self-owns with their incessant attempts at social engineering.
“We even have terms like “semi-virgins” or “near-virgins”, which should be considered comical as virginity is a binary condition, i.e. she either is a virgin or not. If a woman was not a virgin in the past, she was not considered worthy of marriage, regardless of whether she has had sex with one guy or 20.”
I actually think that blue pilled sucks have to go through mental gymnastics to think of this. The hippies in the 1960’s were quite promiscuous but they considered Playboy and Hugh Heifer as liberators of sexuality. As with everything, boomers ruined everything.
Speaking of degenerate Democrats, a bunch of these sick fucks got together to film a gay orgy in a Senate hearing room:
https://web.archive.org/web/20231216234840/https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/16/politics/senate-aide-sex-tape-hearing-room/index.html
Unsurprisingly, Google is heavily suppressing this story.
Aaron,
“…blue-pilled cucks have also become a lot more tolerant of women whoring around. If you take this into account, the number would probably have to go up to 300 to 500 guys a year.”
Have you heard of J. D. Unwin? He wrote a book called Sex and Culture and he explains that the collapse of civilization (not all – just some) has often been rooted in the lack of sexual restraint in societies. He contends that as societies evolve and become progressive/liberal sexual attitudes change in the public. Thus, leading to a lack of social cohesion. He explains that if societies had stricter sexual attitudes society can channel their sexual frustration into achieving cultural achievement. Now looking at contemporary society you can witness that there are some parallels, however, it seems like the biggest issue in the decline of societies is abandonment of God which our government has been attacking for quite a while thus leading to a lack of social cohesion. Of course, there are a number of factors that aid in the collapse of societies.
Yes, I have heard of Unwin and even skimmed his book. I would be careful with claims regarding correlation or causation, but to me it seems quite plausible that unbridled sexual degeneracy will bring down society. A more interesting question is if there is a sweet spot between those two extremes that would lead to increased motivation and productivity. Also, as we know from some other societies, it is certainly not the case that suppressing sexuality alone will lead to technological and scientific progress, so I am wary of mono-causal explanations.