To think contraception has been a greater liberator to men than to women?

[Macrodatarefiner]

And for sure, it is a great liberator to women too. Just on balance, men seem to get the better benefit. AIBU?

The benefit to men: maybe getting more sex.

The benefit to women: not having their health and their careers ruined by ceaseless childbearing.

"She was 17 when she started her relationship with the rolling stones- today that would be considered child sexual abuse"

Would it?

But Marianne Faithful did live before reliable contraception. The pill may have been legalised in the U.K. in 1961 - but that was for married women only. In 1968 legislation was brought in so that it could be prescribed to some unmarried women in exceptional circumstances (and even then, doctors of a more old fashioned persuasion would often refuse to prescribe it to them), but it wasn’t until 1974 that it was legalised for all unmarried women. The pill certainly wasn’t driving her sexual activity at 17.

Between the early sixties to mid-late seventies, the period you’re referring to, she didn’t have free access to reliable contraception. So whilst you’ve raised her as an example of a woman you think would have been better off before contraception, she’s actually a perfect example of quite the opposite: women didn’t abstain from sex when they didn’t have any contraception. They had sex. And when they had sex, they often got pregnant. And when they got pregnant, they had one of two things: babies, or abortions, often illegal ones. And the older men she was having sex with clearly weren’t abstaining from sex with her because of a lack of contraception, and they clearly weren’t taking responsibility for it themselves. So she ended up having five terminations, two of them illegal. Can you not acknowledge the illogical argument you’re making?

yes look at Prince Andrew. ComtesseDeSpair whatyou say is very interesting eg: that the sexual revolution actually predated the wide availability of reliable contraception and that the second was perhaps a function of the first rather than the other way round as reactionary feminists suggest.

I do find your time lune interesting for all the free love of the swinging sixties it was only with reliable contraception and legal abortion it's less glamourus sister that women were able to achieve equal pay, maternity rights etc.

Sexual attitudes until well into the 1960s weren’t particularly liberal: majority public opinion, in the UK at least, was still against sex before and outside of marriage - if not that it was wrong, that it was undesirable - hence the unavailability of the pill for unmarried women until much later. The “swinging” moniker is often assumed to refer to sex when it actually referred to a much broader youth counterculture movement of fashion, music, and optimism and economic recovery from post-WW2 austerity. Sexual attitudes were gradually changing, particularly among young people as part of that youth culture, but real sexual liberation was still a fairly long way off - and in non-urban areas, and particularly outside of London, took even longer.

If anything, it was changing attitudes towards sex which eventually drove full legalisation of the pill, rather than the other way around.

OP, what a insanely bizarre thing to say.
For hundreds of years, women have had to deal with the dire consequences of having to give birth of unwanted children. Millions of them died because of this.
Contraception has put an end to this.
What on earth are you talking about????

@Neurodiversitydoctor

"yes look at Prince Andrew"

What?

How is that analogous to a 17 year old being in a relationship with 23 year old man?