The Sexual "Revolution" - the massive downside

[RintFreez]

Its often with a sinking heart I read OP threads on here e.g. my partner watches camgirls, am I wrong to feel this is wrong? Or my boyfriend demands "x" in bed, is this wrong? Is my sex life too "vanilla"?

Anyway, I read an article in The Cut "How a Predator Operated in Plain Sight" about Jeffrey Epstein that seemed to explain the downsides of the Sexual Revolution more clearly, something I've often had an uncomfortable feeling about, especially in recent years with porn so "out there" and defining women's looks (shaved) and fashion and sexual behaviour. Yeah, women got the Pill and abortion, but it also meant men could have sex without feeling or responsibility, if they chose, and lets be honest, women often left with the £250 abortion fee or bringing up their single parent child via the Welfare State (been there, done it I should add ).

This is my abbreviated synopis (with a couple of my additions it must be said): but please read article for full and unamended writing:

The mind-set of Epstein’s generation around sex is still continued and promoted by many others in TV, film, etc today. The sexual revolution gave Americans much, most notably the ability of women to control their reproduction. But in other ways its legacy has been destructive: insidious, pervasive, and long-lasting. The sexual revolution also gave some the intellectual permission to downgrade sexual violence to a matter of taste. What was increasingly purveyed to the masses was an eros that degraded women and girls while pitching it as “healthy” or exciting or normal or acceptable or simply non-“vanilla”. And then a generation of high-minded consumers accepted that definition — together with their belief in their natural right to be titillated.

So pervasive was this blasé shrug about the sexual proclivities of such men, esp rich and powerful men, that this mind-set formed the primeval slime in which Epstein’s compulsions were allowed to flourish. In the late 1970s Roman Polanski raped a 13 year old at Jack Nicholson’s house, and a young Anna Wintour worked for Penthouse founder Bob Guccione’s porn empire. Guccione might have been a template for Epstein. Astronauts dined at his table with the country’s most celebrated writers. Abbie Hoffman, Gore Vidal, Philip Roth all published in his magazine, and no one ever said a thing about the “girls” he kept in a dorm upstairs in his mansion on the Upper East side, limiting and allegedly recording their phone calls, enforcing curfews, refusing their visitors, and having sex with them on an as-needed.

But what the Epstein case raises is something else. The sexual revolution at its most destructive abetted the annihilation of human people on the receiving end of unwanted sex acts, who were trapped or forced into sex, or whose own ideas of pleasure and desire and liberation were overridden, obliterated because of the incontrovertability of a “brilliant” man’s desires and the inability of that man’s social circle to see his victims as anything but collateral damage or nameless prey.

I write this post btw because I feel sad about the subject. Sex is such a gift, but its been increasingly offerred to us in a corrupt way .

I’ve always felt this. I was in my late teens/20’s in the 80’s. Yeah we had the pill and abortion, but men behaved like predators. The sexual revolution in theory made it easier for men and women, but in reality it gave men the permission to behave like shits

I’ve often thought about this...I think I was perfectly happy until I reached my late teens and began encountering the confusing world of men and all the stuff around sex, I felt that my friends either settled with their childhood sweethearts young and were therefore sheltered from the world of having to protect yourself from coercive predators and the others never seemed to see past “ooh he likes me!!!” and then wondered why they kept on being used. I think we went from the olden days where people got married young and the lucky ones it was all romantic and lovely, to the unlucky ones who were seen as the property of their husband, men were seen as superior and girls who had babies and weren’t married were treated like criminals. It was awful and obviously had to change. Then we had the pill, and thankfully that gave us freedom (or should have done) and we weren’t seen as bad for wanting sex (thankfully) but....men were still seen as superior and it gave men leeway to act like predators, women still felt obligated and like property now not just to their husband but to people they were dating, it was easy to coerce women into stuff they didn’t want, and I’ve noticed among women of my mum’s generation there seems to be a lot of shaming of and laughing at women that say no to sex, makes me wonder how they really felt back then, women were shamed into it with virtual strangers and it was now shameful to admit to not feeling right about it, it was easy for men to just use and abuse women and coerce teenage girls who lacked confidence. Then it got to more recently with porn and OLD, and now we have another turning point with the whole “me too” thing, women feel more empowered to say what and who they do and don’t want, and people have the freedom to be who they are and sleep with who they want and only who they want, and now there’s more awareness of LGBTQ, which is a really good thing, you can even identify as asexual, and things are becoming a lot more equal. However I still think women have a long way to go when it comes to equality and even now we come across slimy entitled blokes coupled with the pressure from sheltered settled down girls who don’t understand why you would turn any offer of sex down “your single, you can, what’s the matter with you, you can see he likes you”. I was in my teenage years in the 90’s early 00’s and 20’s in the 00’s, 10’s. I have seen things change a lot, some for better and some for worse, but I feel a great proportion of my late teens and early 30’s was made a misery as I was in constant inner turmoil around issues to do with pushy and coercive men and I felt alone in this, never felt able to talk about it and even experienced depression because of it.

I think in everything to do with women's emancipation, such as work, sex etc there are 3 stages:

You can have it all - yes, you can have a career, marriage, children/all the sex you could possibly want.

You should have it all - Look, there's nothing to stop you having a high-flying career, marriage, children/all the sex you could possibly want. It's your right, you should grab the opportunity with both hands, go on, go for it, be a pioneer.

And then, the insidious

Why AREN'T you having it all? - You are a failure as a woman if you are not having a top-flight career and a family, not to mention multiple orgasms several times a week.

The Pill is often vaunted as the greatest invention that aided women's emancipation, but, TBH, the washing machine did far more and rarely gets a look in because it doesn't assist men as much as the pill does.

I agree, OP.
I also feel the same way about house prices and dual income families. I never had the choice to stay at home with my DC.

But all the concerns you’re describing aren’t related to anything to do with women’s ‘sexual revolution.’ It’s very much the status quo. There have always been sex workers. There have always been women pressured to do what they aren’t comfortable with by powerful men. There has always been abuse in relationships. It’s nothing really to do with women’s sexual emancipation and everything to do with men doing as they always have. That’s all very old school really.

I know where you're coming from OP and the "sexual revolution" you describe was definitely something which benefited men more than women. But I don't think you can minimise the importance of contraception for women. Being given the ability to control reproduction has had a massively liberating effect on women: its true that men have used that to their own advantage, but for me that doesn't take away from the importance of women being given the right to control when they get pregnant.

I don’t know - I don’t really disagree with anything you’ve said - only your presumptions.
Male sexuality can be shallow, vulgar, exploitative and egoistic. Grim really! But female sexuality is so much darker also.

So maybe it serves little purpose to expose the evils of economic inequality and what it means for sex for women, without recognising that female sexuality also demands and creates inequality amongst males, to stimulate desire. It’s why most women - unlike most men - won’t have sex with just about anyone, given the right circumstances.
Maybe a thread for feminist chat? - and I’ll stay in my lane!

Agree with previous posters. The sexual revolution has on the whole largely benefited men. They get everything on a plate, with none of the responsibilities.

Sure, there were issues before with patriarchy and there were certain things that needed to change, but at least there were responsibilities imbued into men. We could have worked to change those negatives instead of descending into the mess we're now in. They couldn't shag about and use women as much as they now can since sex was mainly reserved for marriage. Linking sex with marriage, also linked it more with commitment and with the possibility of fatherhood. The pill and abortion has meant men no longer feel that sense of responsibility. They were much more often expected to provide for their children and to offer commitment to the woman.
There was no never ending adolescent stage men are afforded nowadays by Western society - you got on with adulting in your late teens/early 20s, you got married, provided for your family etc. and that was all an essential part of manhood.

Now, being man in a lot of cases consists of indulging in misogynistic porn, camgirls, abandoning children, having all the 'wife' benefits of sex, emotional support etc, all the while being a commitment-phobe. Women need to be pushing back on this.

@thepeopleversuswork

I know where you're coming from OP and the "sexual revolution" you describe was definitely something which benefited men more than women. But I don't think you can minimise the importance of contraception for women. Being given the ability to control reproduction has had a massively liberating effect on women: its true that men have used that to their own advantage, but for me that doesn't take away from the importance of women being given the right to control when they get pregnant.

Women have always been able to control when they get pregnant. A woman is only fertile for a few days in a month and we can use scientific advances to pinpoint all of this. There are much more natural ways to control our fertility without pumping our bodies with unnecessary hormones that also expose us to side effects, including cancer.

A pill for men was being developed but never brought to market as men deemed it too inconvenient for them.

The older I get, the more I think the Sexual Revolution was a load of irresponsible bollocks that only serves (some) men.

At the end of the day, no form of contraception is 100% effective. And all the female-controlled forms of contraception are invasive, and far from risk-free.

Which means (heterosexual) sex is inherently risky for females, and it's not in their best interest at all to sleep around (regardless of how enjoyable the concept of "sexual freedom" might sound)

Promiscuity only benefits men who wants sex with no responsibility. Women are left to carry the baby (or have an abortion, or pump their bodies full of synthetic hormones, etc.)

Don't get me wrong, "family planning" and control over what happens within your own body are important. But given the fact any heterosexual intercourse yields the risk of pregnancy, they should (ideally) only happen within stable relationships, in my opinion (I know, booooring...)

But given the fact any heterosexual intercourse yields the risk of pregnancy, they should (ideally) only happen within stable relationships, in my opinion (I know, booooring...)

Or we could make it easier for women to have and raise children so they wouldn’t need a “stable” (aka nuclear) relationship.

I always remember reading a book about Janis Joplin. There was this guy talking the gap between the invention of the pill and the 2nd wave of feminism.

He said “it was a great time for men because women were sexually promiscuous but they hadn’t yet become political”.

It was one of those moments of disappointment when you realise that men don’t really care that much for women’s wellbeing.

@RomeoLikedCapuletGirls

But given the fact any heterosexual intercourse yields the risk of pregnancy, they should (ideally) only happen within stable relationships, in my opinion (I know, booooring...)

Or we could make it easier for women to have and raise children so they wouldn’t need a “stable” (aka nuclear) relationship.

Or we could make it easier for women to have and raise children so they wouldn’t need a “stable” (aka nuclear) relationship.

Er...what about the child? I guess having a father doesn't matter? Children aren't possessions created to fulfill women, they're human beings in their own right who thrive best in a loving home with both of their parents.

All the gains of feminism seem to be subverted by the patriarchy ( men)

Eg

There is no question that women are better off with reliable contraception and access to abortion.
Subverted to, men can have risk free sex and any consequences are blamed on the woman for not being careful enough.

Sexuality. Talking about female pleasure. Masturbation. The existence of the clitoris. That women can and should enjoy sex, and expect men to see it as a mutual thing rather than lie back and think of England.
Subverted to, sex positive stuff where stuff for male gaze is reframed as women reveling in their sexuality.

Women's bodies. Women have a variety of bodies and they are awesome. Don't let the media etc make you feel bad
Subverted to. Getting your kit off for men is empowering.

I could go on.

It's not feminism that's the problem. It's that the good stuff is subverted.

Most obvious example. I've seen men saying. You want to be equal? Great. I can punch you in the face then.

Lilywater and kaiserin, a question or 2.

Do you disagree with the efforts in various countries to give women access to contraception and abortion?

Do you think the impact on women and girls from having no access to this is worth a supposed responsibility in men?

Massive families so the woman is really shackled
A really hard time for women and girls having babies outside of a stable relationship
Back street abortion -here's some cut and paste from WHO

'Based on data from 2010–2014 there are approximately 25 million unsafe abortions annually. Of these one third or approximately 8 million were performed under the least safe conditions by untrained persons using dangerous and invasive methods. Unsafe abortions lead to an estimated 7 million complications (3).

In developed regions, it is estimated that 30 women die for every 100 000 unsafe abortions. That number rises to 220 deaths per 100 000 unsafe abortions in developing regions and 520 deaths per 100 000 unsafe abortions in sub-Saharan Africa.

Mortality from unsafe abortion disproportionately affects women in Africa. While the continent accounts for 29% of all unsafe abortions, it sees 62% of unsafe abortion-related deaths (1).'

is it better to have things how they were?

Sexual liberation is great.

Sadly most people are stupid and are still raising children by instilling morals from 100 years ago onto them.

So you have contraception, which is wonderful, but the vast majority of parents still raise girls with unconscious beliefs about the goodness of child bearing, marriage, being "good", being an object of desire of a man but never appearing promiscuous or as if they enjoy sex etc, etc. Basically as if contraception never happened.

And so, they often just grow up to get co opted and exploited by predators etc. While they and their parents bleat on about how the problem is liberation itself... no... its people being thick and sleepwalking through life without ever asking themselves simple questions.

I love being sexually liberated. I hate living in a culture that doesn't seem to have a clue how to cope with its own liberation.

@rvby

Great post. Yes women have either forgotten or never known that the sexual revolution also came along with lots of thinking that women could have control over their bodies, but also their lives.

That has largely failed, because women often condition themselves and other women into really complying with a very old, much more male orientated view. Sex is just one aspect of that.

Equality of opportunity is good, but really, the actual part of women controlling their own lives and living as they wish was largely lost.

I would never raise my daughter to be a child bearer. Or to be good. If she wants to be promiscuous then that’s up to her. However, l do raise her to be what she wants and do what she wants. When she is older l will have the predatory/ sex pressure conversation. It breaks me to think that some guy could hurt her, so I’m going to make sure she knows what she’s dealing with.

I also think the age of consent should be raised to 18

@TheEmojiFormerlyKnownAsPrince

I would never raise my daughter to be a child bearer. Or to be good. If she wants to be promiscuous then that’s up to her. However, l do raise her to be what she wants and do what she wants. When she is older l will have the predatory/ sex pressure conversation. It breaks me to think that some guy could hurt her, so I’m going to make sure she knows what she’s dealing with.

I also think the age of consent should be raised to 18

Calling sexual confidence and enjoyment "promiscuity" and expressing a desire to have the age of consent raised are both comically accurate examples of what I was referencing in my post... sigh

OP you are conflating so many different things and mixing your personal views in. Maybe it's good to have a debate, I don't know, but you would do well reading up on these subjects a bit. Sorry if I sound condescending, don't mean to be.

We are out of step with loads of other countries and international orgs like WHO having an age of consent of 16. 18 is the one recommended.

Just as an aside. Don't necessarily want it changed here, but it's worth pointing out.

Yeah RVBY, l know!! You get the drift though. Wrong use of words perhaps...😳

@NiceGerbil your “subversion” post, I couldn’t agree more.

I guess having a father doesn't matter? Children aren't possessions created to fulfill women, they're human beings in their own right who thrive best in a loving home with both of their parents.

Says who? It’s only recently in human history that fathers have taken a role in their children’s upbringing.

I believe that the more people that love the child the better, and that can certainly include the father and yes fathers should have rights if they have shouldered responsibilities, but really, to imagine that the nuclear family with the father there is the optimal one is to ignore most of human history.