Five Paradoxes of the Sexual Revolution

[JimG]

“Here’s the take-away. From one scandalous pregnancy in a rural public high school in the 1970s, to many non-scandalous pregnancies in that same school by the 1990s: that’s one snapshot showing how the sexual revolution has transformed the world.
Which leads us to the first of several paradoxes about that revolution:”

For those who were born after the sexual revolution, it may be difficult to understand the extent to which the world was transformed. Even those who lived through it may not fully realize the extent of it s impact.
Mary Eberstadt begins her summary of the five paradoxes of the sexual revolution here.

 

[ATraveller]

Please share the remaining 3 paradoxes once they’re published. It’s a very informative read for all.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

There is MUCH more to paradox #1 than “the sexual revolution”. There was a simultaneous “women’s lib” movement that had nothing to do with sex.

There was also post war prosperity for young adults. That includes everything from better medical care to affordable automobiles for teens and young adults. Large increases in population of cities meant that there was less of a “everyone knows everyone” vibe in each town or city.

Many factors led to the increase of sexual activity in the last 40-50 years.

I thought paradox #2 was done well.

 

[JimG]

Headings from the article:

Paradox One: If the foundation of the revolution was the availability of cheap, reliable birth control, why the unprecedented rise in both abortions and pregnancies outside of marriage?

Paradox Two: The sexual revolution was supposed to liberate women. Yet simultaneously, it has become harder to have what most women say they want: marriage and a family.

 

[Viki63]

Not really paradoxes. No surprises here, the Popes have articulated it well. More “reliable” birth control led to more casual sex, leading to more pregnancies and abortions.
Women were “liberated” to be like men, and care less about commitment. Except that they don’t. But many men feel that if they can get free sex so readily, why bother to get married? So marriages have decreased and depression in women has increased.

 

[Xantippe]

“Here’s the take-away. From one scandalous pregnancy in a rural public high school in the 1970s, to many non-scandalous pregnancies in that same school by the 1990s:

And probably a lot fewer 20 years later.

https://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/about/index.htm

“In 2015, a total of 229,715 babies were born to women aged 15–19 years, for a birth rate of 22.3 per 1,000 women in this age group. This is another record low for U.S. teens and a drop of 8% from 2014. Birth rates fell 9% for women aged 15–17 years and 7% for women aged 18–19 years.”

“Although reasons for the declines are not totally clear, evidence suggests these declines are due to more teens abstaining from sexual activity, and more teens who are sexually active using birth control than in previous years.”

https://opa.hhs.gov/adolescent-health?adolescent-development%2Freproductive-health-and-teen-pregnancy%2Fteen-pregnancy-and-childbearing%2Ftrends%2Findex.html

“In 2014, there were 24.2 births for every 1,000 adolescent females ages 15-19, or 249,078 babies born to females in this age group. Nearly 89 percent of these births occurred outside of marriage.”

“The 2014 teen birth rate indicates a decline of nine percent from 2013 when the birth rate was 26.5 per 1,000.1 The teen birth rate has declined almost continuously over the past 20 years. In 1991, the U.S. teen birth rate was 61.8 births for every 1,000 adolescent females, compared with 24.2 births for every 1,000 adolescent females in 2014. Still, the U.S. teen birth rate is higher than that of many other developed countries, including Canada and the United Kingdom.”

"Teen birth rates differ substantially by age, racial and ethnic group, and region of the country. Most adolescents who give birth are 18 or older; in 2014, 73 percent of all teen births occurred to 18- to 19-year-olds.1 Birth rates are also higher among Hispanic and black adolescents than among their white counterparts. In 2014, Hispanic adolescent females ages 15-19 had the highest birth rate (38 births per 1,000 adolescent females), followed by black adolescent females (34.9 births per 1,000 adolescent females) and white adolescent females (17.3 births per 1,000 adolescent females) (see Figure 1).1 Estimates from 2013 data show that 11 percent of adolescent females in the United States will give birth by her 20th birthday, with substantial differences by race/ethnicity: 8 percent of white adolescent females, 16 percent of black adolescent females, and 17 percent of Hispanic adolescent females.3

“Although Hispanics currently have the highest teen birth rates, they have also had a dramatic recent decline in rates. Since 2007, the teen birth rate has declined by 50% for Hispanics, compared with declines of 44% for blacks and 36% for whites.”

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Regarding marriage, I’d say that it is bigger than just “cheap sex”. Marriage is also “expensive” and incredibly risky. Mobility plus the ability to expand the dating pool via dating sites means that the “cartel” women once had is broken.
Given the reduced sexual activity of younger generations vs previous ones at the same age I’d say men are less motivated to pursue romantic relations.

 

[Xantippe]

Regarding marriage, I’d say that it is bigger than just “cheap sex”. Marriage is also “expensive” and incredibly risky.

Right. Living in a good enough neighborhood and providing a good enough education and good enough health care to your kids is now very expensive–even if there are only two of them.

Given the reduced sexual activity of younger generations vs previous ones at the same age I’d say men are less motivated to pursue romantic relations.

It isn’t just a question of motivation–there’s an enormous percentage of young adults living with their parents right now.

40 percent of young americans living with parents, relatives - CBS News

“Almost 40 percent of young adults lived with their parents, step-parents, grandparents and other relatives last year, or the highest point in 75 years, according to data from real estate analytics company Trulia. The only time in U.S. history when the share has been higher was in 1940, when the U.S. economy was regaining its footing from the Great Depression and the year prior to the country’s entry into World War II.”

“The research echoes findings from the Pew Research Center earlier this year, which found that 32.1 percent of 18- to 34-year-olds lived at their parents’ homes in 2014, exceeding the 31.6 percent of young adults who were married or living with a partner in their own household. That marked a tipping point for the first time in modern history, since the norm for decades was for young adults to push out on their own after high school or college.”

For a lot of young adults, starting a family would mean doing so literally in their mom’s basement.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

I also meant expensive in non monetary ways. There is a certain level of freedom that goes away in any relationship. From silly things as losing the option to do stupid dangerous activities to finding that the way you’ve interacted with opposite sex friends for decades is suddenly “bad”.

For a lot of young adults, starting a family would mean doing so literally in their mom’s basement

The bigger issue is that this could form a generation in which a large percentage may come to prefer the single life. Thinking back, I was probably a year or so from preferring the single life rather than looking for a wife or even a gf.
To this day there are numerous things I miss about the single life. Had I not met my wife for another year I’d probably have become a lifelong bachelor.

 

[edwest211]

I lived through the Sexual Revolution as it happened in the late 1960s. The goal was to preach that it was OK to have sex with anyone and use contraception like The Pill. The Women’s Liberation Movement in the 1970s is a separate, but related, issue. There were victims of the Sexual Revolution. I watched the carnage. Total strangers abused our trust, knowing that more people were trusting of others at the time.

http://www.ruthinstitute.org/for-su...elve-survivors-of-the-sexual-revolution-chart

http://www.ruthinstitute.org/store/ruth-books/the-sexual-revolution-and-its-victims

 

[DarkLight]

Women were “liberated” to be like men, and care less about commitment.

I have always thought the irony was often that we in some cases ought to have made men more like women (by certain cultural standards), rather than women more like men.

Wouldn’t it be a better society if both men and women prized and desired commitment to their spouses and involvement with their children? The idea that a woman had to “tie down” a man was never a good one.

 

[Xantippe]

Wouldn’t it be a better society if both men and women prized and desired commitment to their spouses and involvement with their children? The idea that a woman had to “tie down” a man was never a good one.

And, in fact, there was a male sexual revolution that substantially predated the female one. Playboy Magazine, for example, launched in 1953.

 

[edwest211]

Hefner’s “Playboy Philosophy”? Seriously? I used to read his clap-trap, on occasion. No one bought the magazine only to read, but in order to add a thin layer of fake respectability, Mr. Hefner was trying to get men comfortable with the idea that sex is an anytime thing and may or may not be connected with reproduction. The magazine featured articles about things the “modern” man was driving, wearing and drinking. He preferred the finer things, including fine women. Mr. Hefner partly based his “philosophy” on the highly flawed research of Alfred Kinsey, a sexual pervert. The Kinsey Reports included one for the Human Male (1948) and for the Human Female (1953). Coincidence? No.

And those Playboys I once had are now in a landfill. Thank God.

 

[edwest211]

Please. The idea that a man had to tie down a woman was never a good idea. I was there in the late 1950s. I had a mom and dad. My mother told me that marriage was a partnership. Later, radical feminist, Betty Friedan, would compare the family to “… a comfortable concentration camp.”

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Later, radical feminist, Betty Friedan, would compare the family to “… a comfortable concentration camp.”

The word malcontent was designed specifically for this woman.

 

[edwest211]

I’d like to add a few words from Feminist Icon and co-founder of Ms. magazine, Gloria Steinem: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”

The first issue of Ms. magazine appeared in 1972.

 

[DarkLight]

Kinda my point there. We already had the idea that men were tied down by marriage. It would have been better to introduce to men to care about their families and commit to them in the way that women were expected to do so.

 

[edwest211]

I watched a film showing a Chinese farmer. He spent the day out in the field plowing. A relative of mine was a farmer in a European country. He had a family to feed. He also took live animals, eggs and so on to the local (some few kilometers away) open market. He was so tired one night, he fell asleep on his horse. His horse knew the way home. One of his children told me: “One night my father just fell back on his bed and asked us kids to pull off his boots. He was so tired.”

 

[QwertyGirl]

Please. The idea that a man had to tie down a woman was never a good idea. I was there in the late 1950s. I had a mom and dad. My mother told me that marriage was a partnership. Later, radical feminist, Betty Friedan, would compare the family to “… a comfortable concentration camp.”

I guess we should respect the fact that no two marriages are the same. A wonderful experience for some, and not so much for others. I appreciate that people nowadays are brave enough to talk about the pitfalls of marriage. Back in the fifties and sixties you would be considered a failure to admit that your marriage was misery. I think honesty, and getting on with life by divorcing, is much better. Many things in a marriage can be fixed and repaired by the commitment of two people. On the other hand there are a lot of things that happen in broken marriages that will never be fixed no matter how hard somebody tries. Living in misery should never be considered an acceptable option.

 

[vz71]

Back in the fifties and sixties you would be considered a failure to admit that your marriage was misery.

Back then, marriage was still looked at as a lifetime commitment.
An admission of that type is an admission they did not take the marriage commitment seriously and chose poorly.