Second thoughts about the sexual revolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter ATraveller
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

ATraveller

Guest
[The sexual] revolution is having deleterious consequences—and not only on the young—in the form of broken families and the attendant disadvantages conferred by fatherless homes, as has been excruciatingly well-documented by social scientists for many decades. Over half a century into the sexual revolution, the human damages at the end of life’s telescope are now also visible.
Click to expand...
[T]he MeToo movement offers an opportunity to bridge ideological divides as the traditional cheerleaders of the sexual revolution reckon with the empirical record. The recent scandals have produced powerful new evidence for everyone to weigh. What are the two common denominators among the alleged offenses? One was the assumption that all women are sexually available at all times—what might be called the sexual revolution’s first commandment. The other is that many exploitative men have taken cover in venues closely identified with pro-revolutionary politics: Hollywood, mainstream print, radio, and television journalism, Silicon Valley—and even the New York attorney general’s office.
Click to expand...
These men infiltrated important cultural precincts under the false flag of being “pro-woman” and succeeded because they were seen to be on “the right side” of the abortion debate. Wolves in Planned Parenthood clothing, they used pro-abortion politics as protective cover for harassment and exploitation, just as Playboy founder Hugh Hefner, who advocated for legal abortion many years before Roe v. Wade, also did in his lifetime. As feminist Susan Brownmiller put it in the New York Times after Hefner’s death, dissenting from the fawning eulogies about his purported feminism, “The reason Mr. Hefner supported abortion was not from any feminist feeling; it was purely strategic.”
Click to expand...
https://www.weeklystandard.com/mary...xual-revolution-has-been-a-disaster?_amp=true
 
No. Sorry but rape and sexual assault were not caused by the sexual revolution. They existed before then in rampant numbers, my grandmother’s all have their stories.
 
ATraveller said:
[T]he MeToo movement offers an opportunity to bridge ideological divides as the traditional cheerleaders of the sexual revolution reckon with the empirical record. The recent scandals have produced powerful new evidence for everyone to weigh. What are the two common denominators among the alleged offenses? One was the assumption that all women are sexually available at all times—what might be called the sexual revolution’s first commandment. The other is that many exploitative men have taken cover in venues closely identified with pro-revolutionary politics: Hollywood, mainstream print, radio, and television journalism, Silicon Valley—and even the New York attorney general’s office.
Click to expand...
Nice try. The sexual revolution has exactly zero to do with this. The assumption that the sexual revolution means that women are “always available” is quite offensive. The sexual revolution allowed for women to be more in charge of their relationships vs the explicit needs of the man. What’s worse is that this is completely arrogant male privilege to blame this on a sexual revolution. Men have been sticking their hands and gentiles in inappropriate places well before the “revolution”.
ATraveller said:
These men infiltrated important cultural precincts under the false flag of being “pro-woman” and succeeded because they were seen to be on “the right side” of the abortion debate. Wolves in Planned Parenthood clothing, they used pro-abortion politics as protective cover for harassment and exploitation, just as Playboy founder Hugh Hefner, who advocated for legal abortion many years before Roe v. Wade, also did in his lifetime. As feminist Susan Brownmiller put it in the New York Times after Hefner’s death, dissenting from the fawning eulogies about his purported feminism, “The reason Mr. Hefner supported abortion was not from any feminist feeling; it was purely strategic.”
Click to expand...
What is this drivel other than to link multiple items the the writer dislikes? Planned Parenthood is not necessarily run by perverts in a position of power over women. These men had poor boundaries or in most cases abused the power to satisfy the sexual misdeeds.
 
Last edited:
The sexual revolution radically changed the relationship between men and women. Previously women were respected and protected; now they are seen as objects. Yes, the sexual revolution changed everything. See this article by Mary Eberstadt entitled “Two Nations Revisited.” The second part of it covers some of the devastating consequences arising from the sexual revolution. A few excerpts:

“…the same 50 years have offered proof after proof that the sexual revolution inaugurated by widespread adoption of the Pill has included terrible consequences.”

“There are also what might be called “macroscopic” proofs — new evidence that the revolution not only continues to disfigure individual lives, but is also widening its effects into society and politics in ways that now amount to signature problems of our times.”

“But the most salient point to be made about these scandals hasn’t made the rounds as yet. It’s not about one particular man or another newly fallen from worldly grace. It’s rather about what, exactly, has made these multidimensional scandals possible in the first place. Men behaving badly, as some skeptics have shrugged, isn’t exactly news. But a great many men taking for granted the sexual availability of any given woman, in one arena after another — that is new. That is something that only the Pill and related technologies could have made possible.”

“Only in a world where sex is allegedly free of consequences would any man dare to proposition women on the spot, over and over, as appears to have been the case among the repeat offenders accused in the harassment revelations of the past two years.”

Source:

 
We were respected before? Truly? In many places women couldn’t have credit cards without their husband signing off on it; that doesn’t seem respected. It seems like being infantalised at best.

Women were just as objectified back then. Sorry. But now we have rights and get to point out when the objectification happens.
 
JimG said:
The sexual revolution radically changed the relationship between men and women. Previously women were respected and protected; now they are seen as objects. Yes, the sexual revolution changed everything
Click to expand...
Women were completely objects util recently, virtually property of the men we were married to. Now we’re simply sex objects. :roll_eyes: I get the strong feeling that the men that have been posting so far don’t get it. The “sexual revolution” you are so fascinated by was the end of the “father knows best” era. Women were expected to be subservient, they were called hysterical, they were to stay in abusive marriages. What you miss in your fantasy land is that the stable family bliss was simply a gloss over of reality. If you only would hear the stories some of the women who lived through these times. What has happened in recent years (and “radical feminism” is another code word for this) is that men who gripe about this have no idea how to behave anymore. They blame the change and refuse the introspection to acknowledge it. The problem for many males (especially white) is that they don’t understand the position of privilege they live in and any
challenge to that status is a hostile change that must be suppressed or explained away.
Dacinom said:
Men expect sex now like never before with no emotional ties or responsibilities. Women are expected to embrace this as freedom. Sex is, of course different for women then men. This entire set up has been bad for women and the family, I think the statistics for that are overwhelmingly obvious. Abortion, fatherless homes, all so sad.
Click to expand...
No, women are allowed to eject these men from their lives and NOT deal with them. That is the freedom. Your statement implies that we still need men to function, period. Men not being present is not the all encompassing cause of family issues. Believe it or not there are times it’s better for a useless, drunk, abusive, or whatever father to be gone.
 
Last edited:
Alex337 said:
Women were just as objectified back then. Sorry. But now we have rights and get to point out when the objectification happens.
Click to expand...
They certainly were not. Would a woman’s backside or genitalia be referred to as much as it is now in popular songs? Would you ever hear that in say, a Bing Crosby song? It would have been unthinkable.

Objectivation happens in the mind, it’s the womb of lustful thoughts and the most damaging. If a woman decides to walk around in a see through crop top and a mini skirt, knowing full well that men are very visual, how in the world would that be helping the situation?? Women should understand the necessity to dress decently and men should understand the necessity to control themselves.
 
Last edited:
I guess it might affect different places differently.
 
misstherese said:
40.png
Alex337:
Women were just as objectified back then. Sorry. But now we have rights and get to point out when the objectification happens.
Click to expand...
They certainly were not. Would a woman’s backside or genitalia be referred to as much as it is now in popular songs? Would you ever hear that in say, a Bing Crosby song? It would have been unthinkable.

Objectivation happens in the mind, it’s the womb of lustful thoughts and the most damaging. If a woman decides to walk around in a see through crop top and a mini skirt, knowing full well that men are very visual, how in the world would that be helping the situation?? Women should understand the necessity to dress decently and men should understand the necessity to control themselves.
Click to expand...
Sorry but they were. People wrote objectifying but censored songs “back then” too. And women were objectified.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
When were women previously respected? I think even back in the biblical times there has been an element of sexism. Jesus preached for women to be treated as equals. Women being considered less than is not a new concept.
 
I definitely agree singers of the past may not have had the audacity to sing as crudely and explicitly about women as rappers and other artists do now. I don’t think women were necessarily respected more. I am certain the casting couch existed back then as did rape culture.
 
I’ll agree that contraceptives has cheapened sex or made casual sex a more desirable option or easily accessible. I’m certain some men have alway wanted the benefit of sex without commitment, responsibility or any sort of emotional ties but they couldn’t get away with in the past.
 
I think people are confusing women’s lib with the sexual revolution
 
I see two replies attacking the commentary but one click on the link.
Alex337 said:
No. Sorry but rape and sexual assault were not caused by the sexual revolution. They existed before then in rampant numbers, my grandmother’s all have their stories.
Click to expand...
No one is making that claim. It’s a straw man. She wrote this:
Yes, cads and brutes have always been with us; yes, accusations shouldn’t be lodged cavalierly and need to be assessed carefully; and yes, as the examples of Fox News and other workplaces have revealed, harassment and accusations of harassment aren’t just a progressive thing. Even so, it is undeniable that a disproportionate number of the prominent men brought down by these scandals have been identified with—and sometimes indistinguishable from—a political worldview that enthusiastically embraces the tenets of the sexual revolution. Indeed, many proudly wore their feminist credentials on their sleeves.
Click to expand...
PJH_74 said:
What’s worse is that this is completely arrogant male privilege to blame this on a sexual revolution.
Click to expand...
The author is a woman.
PJH_74 said:
What is this drivel other than to link multiple items the the writer dislikes? Planned Parenthood is not necessarily run by perverts in a position of power over women.
Click to expand...
She never wrote men were running PP. She wrote plenty of ‘male feminists’ were predators and the pro-abortion activists depended on them. In fact:
Elitist men have always been the demographic most strongly in support of unrestricted abortion, though they needed vocal women to do their bidding. Note this conclusion of demographer Judith Blake in her study, “Abortion and Public Opinion: The 1960-1970 Decade” in Science magazine in 1971:

“Legalized abortion is supported most strongly by the non-Catholic, male, well-educated ‘establishment.’” She urged abortion proponents to look to them for legalization “in spite of conservative opinions among important subgroups such as the lower classes and women.”

Blake added: “Upper-class men have much to gain and very little to lose by an easing of legal restrictions against abortion.”
Feminist enablers of the war against women
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
0Scarlett_nidiyilii said:
I think people are confusing women’s lib with the sexual revolution
Click to expand...
One would hope.
The reflexive offence of many when anyone points out the major setbacks and social consequences of the sexual revolution usually indicates they see it as something they value a lot and worth defending, like a mother grizzly and her cubs.
 
Last edited:
PJH_74 said:
The “sexual revolution” you are so fascinated by was the end of the “father knows best” era. Women were expected to be subservient, they were called hysterical, they were to stay in abusive marriages. What you miss in your fantasy land is that the stable family bliss was simply a gloss over of reality.
Click to expand...
Again, no one is saying the past was some ideal. The point is the path the revolution took the West isn’t where people think it is. There were improvements to people’s lives post-50’s but the idea that they hinged on the sexual revolution is complete nonsense.
This is something I don’t get. Why is it that when someone points to the negative consequences 1 and 2 that occur after Event A means that person is endorsing negative consequences 3 and 4 that existed prior to A but faded after A? Often, critics of Event A would have preferred an Event B that didn’t occur and not the status quo. Reforms are preferred over revolutions.
 
Last edited:
That would be because I’m on my phone and links often don’t work for me, so I responded top the sections you posted. It sounds like she either contradicts her own point or renders it a bit pointless by saying these things did always happen.
 
This poster is a product of the sexual revolution era.

Editing to add that I do see your point.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top