1960s Sexual Revolution

[Fake Messiah]

The so-called Sexual Revolution is something that conservative Christians have been railing against for years and blaming it for everything under the sun.

But what is the sexual revolution? I ask because I usually don't hear anything about it except from already mentioned lunatics. Is (was) this something real that happened in the 1960s or is just another moral panic? I mean, it all looks like an idiotic take on feminism, if you ask me.

To me, it seemed that sexual revolution was the time in the 50s when Kinsey showed up and people started talking about sex more and slowly becoming more understanding towards gays, masturbation, sex in general as something more than just procreation.
But then again, people have been talking about sex before, so maybe it's not even that.

Now let's turn to what sexual revolution is not or maybe it is, you tell me - that's why I opened this topic.

Looking in one of those books on the Amazon written by a Christian woman, sexual revolution is described as the moment when the contraceptive pill showed up which made women have irresponsible sex ("like men"). But, apparently, in doing this "dirty deed" women are actually suffering inside because they are not "designed" like men to just have a lot of sex with different partners (yes, men don't get blamed for being horny and having sex), but they want to be subdued by a man in marriage. Yes, the logic goes that if a woman chooses to have out of wedlock sex with several partners, she is doing it against her free will and is manipulated by men's fantasies, but if she chooses to be a housewife, who obeys husband's every order, she is not manipulated by men.

This sexual freedom (aka slavery to male sexual fantasies) is also, apparently, driving women to prostitution and pornography, only to make them frigid and not wanting to have kids. I'm sure it also somehow makes them into communists, too.

In reality, it is not independence that will drive women to prostitution, but patriarchy where they are kept uneducated as well as faced with miserable opportunities for employment, thus turning them to prostitution as only available work, since irresponsible daddies frequently don't provide. This is why there were many more prostitutes in the 19th century, and earlier, than today.

This is from forward in the book "The Case Against the Sexual Revolution" captured from Amazon just to see what I was referring to and as you'll see it's total ideology driven nonsense.

---

What did the sexual revolution of the 1960s ever do for us? The invention of the contraceptive pill reduced women’s fear of unwanted pregnancy, enabling them to provide the kind of sex a lot of men prefer: copious and commitment-free. Many women claim to enjoy this kind of sex too. But, as Perry explains, there’s good reason to disbelieve at least some such reports. For we now live in a culture where, though it isn’t taboo for a man to choke a woman during sex, or anally penetrate her, or ejaculate on her face while filming it, it is taboo for a young woman to express discomfort about the nature of the sexual bargain she’s expected by society to make. This bargain says: sacrifice your own wellbeing for the pleasures of men in order to compete in the heterosexual dating marketplace at all.

What the sexual revolution had for women in the twentieth century have been supersized in the digital age of the twenty-first. There is little doubt that contemporary sexual culture is destructive for younger women in particular. It sells them a sexbot aesthetic, pressures them into promiscuity, bombards them with dick pics and violent pornography, and tells them to enjoy being humiliated and assaulted in bed. It says that, as long as they choose it, being exploited for money is ‘sex work’ and that ‘sex work is work’. It also tells women not to mix up sex with love and to stay disconnected and emotionless from partners.– ignoring the obvious fact that telling women to subdue their minds and submit their bodies to physically stronger strangers can be lethal.

In a culture dominated by male sexuality, there’s an obvious interest in convincing women that they want to have sex like men do, and many women go along with things they later come to regret.

Both liberal feminism’s narrow focus on choice and its incapacity to discuss deep differences between women and men stem from its intellectual forefather: liberalism, a political tradition heavily focused on freedom of choice as the thing definitive of personhood. The fantasy of a liberal subject is of an ostensibly sexless individual, defined mostly by the presence of a free will, untethered by family ties or community expectations and pursuing private preferences in a relatively unfettered way.

once we acknowledge the ‘hard limits imposed by biology’, we can make informed inferences about female wellbeing in particular – rooted in the real, and not what is projected or fantasised by men.

---