How the sexual toxicity of the 1960s has harmed the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Societal changes for the bad were meant to turn average people into the image and likeness of the people literally standing in front of you in 1965. No one had to adapt to that. No one had to accept any of that. The wolves took advantage of our trust. Of our willingness to listen.
 
Your elaborate reinterpretation of what I wrote amounts to a dodge. I can easily add the 40s and 50s. Your point is not accepted. People living in the 1960s were watched by those who could not stand the way we lived. Who hated Christian living. Why? One reason was it bothered them. It made them uncomfortable about how they lived. So they attacked. How could they not? Watching people actually living out what they believed, for the most part, meant going in and wrecking our neighborhoods, disrupting our tranquility and offering all kinds of bad things. So they could feel comfortable. So that we might give their lifestyle a try.
 
I’m sorry. I just don’t buy into your conspiracy theory. Societies evolve. It’s just the way it is.
 
niceatheist said:
It wasnt called the counter Reformation for nothing. And it was most certainly a response to the Reformation.
Click to expand...
Yes it was a counter reformation. To counter the reformation. The Church did not align itself up with protestantism. We still do not believe in faith alone, we do not believe in scripture alone, we still have indulgences, we still believe in faith and works, we still have statues of saints, we still pray to the saints, we do not believe in calvinistic predestination, we still honor our Blessed Mother and …

Even if they call it a reformation, it was a revolution. To reform something, you change it or improve it. That did not happen. It brought death and chaos.
niceatheist said:
My larger point is that Conservatism gives undue emphasis on authority.
Click to expand...
It isn’t about conservativism or liberalism. It is about right and wrong.
niceatheist said:
The 1960s were no different than the the than the 1660s and the 1770s.
Click to expand...
There most certainly was a difference. The 1770’s was questioning what authority was doing. They did not believe there wasn’t a need for any governing authority.

There were thouights and ideas and events that came into the 60’s that were wrong. They were just plain evil, such as the sexual revolution, which in and of itself was and still is immoral and sins against God.

As I said before there is a difference in questioning authority or something authority is doing, and rejecting all authority or seeing all authority as wrong just because they are authority.

God bless
 
Last edited:
“societies evolve”? That doesn’t mean anything. Only people create situations and try to get people to buy into their nonsense.

Fashion: Self-described fashion designers dictate what body shapes are to be admired and the clothing that goes with it. Twiggy and mini-skirts. Compared to average women at the time, she was twiggy. And the thinking of the fashion designers? “Bold, daring, shocking!” Translation, show more skin and try to convince normal women to do the same by example.

1971 The start of a string of dysfunctional TV families. Forget Ozzie and Harriet and Father Knows Best. No one can live up to that! Really? I could relate to all of those families. Dysfunctional families were put on TV so average people could see people behaving badly.
 
So you preferred fantasy versions of the nuclear family to shows that more accurately depicted such families.
 
“accurately depicted”? Where did you see that on TV? Those dysfunctional families were about the dark side of humanity. A place where a fictional version of the family was presented as rotten, disfigured and immoral. Lacking the civility and respect we were taught. Showing life not as good citizens but as bad people living a life that was not good for themselves or their neighbors. And which some hoped would be a bad influence on us.

Bad is bad.
 
And how were all those 1950s nuclear family shows not the polar opposite? I get that those shows probably represent your ideal view of the family, but what if Mrs. Cleaver decided she wanted to be a lawyer now that the boys were both adolescent? Such a view would have been almost unthinkable in any sitcom before the 1970s. Even poor Lucy and Ethel were usually punished in some amusing and inventive way for wanting to achieve something akin to what their husbands had.

Thanks. I’ll take All In The Family and its spin-offs, which preserved the notion of the nuclear family unit, without the pretenses and fictions involved in previous incarnations. Even better is the Mary Tyler Moore show, which depicted women as more than just mothers dusting until their husband and children came home. Or the early seasons of Good Times, which tried to accurately portray a working class black family. You know, where the African American character wasn’t the sassy, all-knowing maid.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
Fashion: Self-described fashion designers dictate what body shapes are to be admired and the clothing that goes with it. Twiggy and mini-skirts.
Click to expand...
Twiggy? Ye gods and little fishes, Ed. You are still living in the 60’s.

I hate to break this to you mate. But the counter culture has been ticking over well before you were even born. And will be long after you have gone. People move into it and then drift out. You don’t get many boomers walking around in Kaftans these days. I gave those up a long time back, together with two tone flares and Ben Sherman shirts. Although I still have the ocassional joint and I still have some beads strung around my neck. Although my ponytail was cut off about 18 months ago. Freaked my wife out.

Maybe you don’t listen to a lot of music but you can go back to the 20’s and 30’s and people were having fun at the expense of people like you back then listening to lyrics that you probably wouldn’t appreciate as being salacious. The more recent Shake Rattle and Roll contains sexual euphamisms that I am too much of a gentleman to explain. As does Little Red Rooster and many, many others.

Your views come across as…quaint.

You might complain about some odd fashion choices and ‘rock and roll’ (which was itself a euphamism for sexual intercourse) but you seem to hold very naiive views. Even for an elderly gentleman.
 
“polar opposite”? We actually lived like those people. No, we were not perfect. We aspired to the same things we saw on TV. We knew people like that. That modeling of those behaviors encouraged similar behaviors. Modeling bad behaviors on TV was meant to encourage bad behaviors.

As far as TV, I know what you like. Your choices are no surprise. Some people bought into the ‘alternative lifestyle’ nonsense since the shows you mention were meant to promote them.

And women before the 1970s lacked brains until radical feminists told them what to do? Being a stay at home mom was 100% wrong, according to them.
 
Last edited:
When the music industry’s only answer to all that sexual innuendo-laden black music (whether performed by African-Americans or whites) was Pat Boone, it’s little wonder that when the second wave of Baby Boomers heard John Lennon screaming the Beatles’ rendition of Twist And Shout, they struck back at the attempt to de-blackify rock and roll by buying every British Invasion album they could get their hands on. The status quo had managed to beat back the first wave of counterculture with Elvis going into the Army and coming back with ever-more awful movies, but they couldn’t stop the British from rekindling the rebellious spirit.

And it was bigger and older than the mid-60s. Even in the 1940s, Frank Sinatra represented a new kind of male sexuality, and it was followed by Marlon Brando and James Dean in the 1950s. The Baby Boomer’s, unlike their parents, who had gone from Depression to war, naturally wanted to find their own way.

The 1960s culture had its dark side; the Manson Family, the drugs, but it also was about the Baby Boomers, now being expected to go fight a war in a place most of their parents couldn’t have even found on map, to defend a regime that by any modern understanding would have been viewed as an authoritarian nightmare. In other words, those Authorities that some here seem to think held great fonts of wisdom that the young should eagerly drink from, were sending kids off to die. So when Muhammad Ali made it clear that he had no intention of going to Vietnam, and you couldn’t call him a coward, because he got into a ring with some of the toughest guys around, it was a signal that the Baby Boomers weren’t just fodder for someone else’s war.
 
edwest211 said:
“polar opposite”? We actually lived like those people. No, we were not perfect. We aspired to the same things we saw on TV. We knew people like that. That modeling of those behaviors encouraged similar behaviors. Modeling bad behaviors on TV was meant to encourage bad behaviors.

As far as TV, I know what you like. Your choices are no surprise. Some people bought into the ‘alternative lifestyle’ nonsense since the shows you mention were meant to promote them.

And women before the 1970s lacked brains until radical feminists told them what to do? Being a stay at home mom was 100% wrong, according to them.
Click to expand...
According to some of them. You have this great need to bolster your arguments with sweeping generalizations. What women lacked before the 1970s was a social movement that could give them credibility to pursue their own goals, where women’s only role wasn’t simply to be a mother.

We’re all human beings, Ed, and each one of us, regardless of the chromosomes we possess, has an innate right to choose our own course. Furthermore, we live in free societies, so the idea that somehow because people don’t buy into your mythical vision of the nuclear family, that somehow they have been lead astray, may be valid from your point of view, no one is obligated to accept your point of view.

There had been demands for female emancipation and equality since the 19th century, and at every turn the old guard fought it, and each victory came with further attempts to re-entrench the Old Boys Club. The family TV of the 1950s was part of that campaign, to show the ideal family, but whatever the ideal was, it wasn’t real. Even by the 1960s, there were at least attempts to show most realistic portrayals (the Doris Day show showed a widowed mother rebuilding her life, which included, shockingly enough, actually having some ambition other than just finding a new husband).
 
The 1950’s was a time that came after a great depression and 2 World wars and the Korean conflict. People were working hard to put family life back together after people came home from the war. There were many families that had lost their fathers at war and there were many orphans.

So what was happening with those shows during the 50’s and the early 60’s was family encouragement. They were trying to encourage good parenting, home, marriage and family.

I’m sorry but the shows that came after that do not have that purpose behind them. They are about making fun of family life if not about sex.

All families are dysfunctional, in that we are all sinners but what we need are people not to encourage us in evil but to encourage us in good. We need encouragement in good family relations.

What family show does that today, outside of maybe Last Man Standing and When Calls the Heart?

??
 
Marlon Brando and James Dean. Obvious choices, again. You weren’t there for the Vietnam War, were you? The situation was nothing like you describe and there is good history that has been paved over. The US Advisors in South Vietnam were just looking around? Instructing South Vietnamese soldiers about how to use their weapons and nothing more? President Kennedy was planning on withdrawing US troops in phases in 1963. “Harkins foresaw that U.S. military personnel in South Vietnam would be reduced to 12,200 by mid 1965 and to 1,500 in mid 1968.”

There was no South Vietnam. That a US-backed government was installed? Yes. When President Johnson came in, the it never happened Gulf of Tonkin incident was all that was needed to commit US combat troops. I was there in 1964 and spoke with a neighbor. I was in the kitchen where he stood in full uniform. On the kitchen table was a large book about a particular Armored Personnel Carrier. He knew where he was going. Anyone who had fought in the China-India-Burma theater understood the lay of the land. This young man was told that Communism was spreading. If the Communists in Vietnam were not stopped, that a ‘domino effect’ would occur and other countries in the region would go Communist.

That is reality and was reality for many other Americans. I knew other war vets.
 
edwest211 said:
We aspired to the same things we saw on TV.
Click to expand...
Does ‘we’ include all the women who aspired to a nice kitchen, a fridge, a new vacuum cleaner, housework, a meal ready for the master of the house when he got home from a hard day at the office? Was that the sum total of the ambitions of half your nation?
 
“sweeping generalizations”? How about actual history, with all of the necessary references, to bolster what actually happened? No one in America needed total strangers coming into their neighborhoods to tell them how to live. No woman needed total strangers to tell them how to think and what to do. What? You think it’s bad when others support time-tested ways of living while others want to support literal death and destruction?

The family was subjected to repeated, sustained attacks that started 50 years ago. The clear goal was to turn functional families into dysfunctional families. Ask anyone who was there. It’s not just me. And abortion, which was supposed to be safe and rare, has resulted in the deaths of millions.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
This young man was told that Communism was spreading. If the Communists in Vietnam were not stopped, that a ‘domino effect’ would occur and other countries in the region would go Communist.

That is reality and was reality for many other Americans.
Click to expand...
Tell us, Ed. How did that prophesy turn out?

I’ve been to Vietnam. Along time after the US defeat. And stood where the tanks rolled through the embassy gates. And stood on the roof where the choppers were taking the last personnel out.

They are some of the nicest people I’ve met. Wonderful country. Likewise Cambodia. And Laos. Great people. Friendly.

Tell us how that prophesy turned out, Ed.
 
You weren’t there either. If you had been, you would know that these young men, drafted or not, were given a mission. Those in the military had other plans. The testing of new or modified weapon systems under combat conditions. Had President Kennedy’s plan been carried out, very few Americas would have been in Vietnam in 1968. As it turned out, the opposite happened. The Vietcong and the North Vietnamese Army had no aircraft carriers or B-52s, or submarines. The same country that committed troops to the European Theater in 1944, and who fought the Japanese, had more than enough firepower. After the Tet Offensive, the order was given to begin withdrawing US troops, long before people were climbing to the roof of the US Embassy.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top