A hard look at the sexual revolution of the 1960s and how it has led to the degradation of women. [Warning: contains awful ugly pictures of naked hippies.]
It was indeed a sexual revolution. A lot of new ideas were tried. Some found to be good things (Equality in the workplace, family planning, access to education), and some found to be bad (The excesses of promiscuity, experimentation with drugs). It’s taken up to today, and a couple of backlash moments in between, to seperate these out and decide which ones to stick with. The process is still ongoing.
I think the article overlooks the benefits of the sexual revolution. Yes, we’ve got teenagers out of control and pressured into sex, and even children in sexy outfits – but we’ve also given women a social status almost the same as that of men. They can be educated, hold jobs, go into any career they want. Their life no longer consists of finding a man to support them and pushing out babies for him, and even when married they are still able to have a career. You couldn’t do that when any sexual activity would unavoidably leave her with children to care for.
It’s a mixed bag, but you can’t take the good without the bad. If you want individual freedom and sexual autonomy, you’ll have to accept that some people will abuse it. That’s just the price that must be paid.
If you want something to blame that has no redeeming value at all, I suggest you look at the advertising industry. It’s probably done more to promote open sexualisation of everything than the pornography industry could hope to dream of.
It’s too bad the article didn’t address such as issues as the feminization of poverty, 1 out of 3 women has or will get an STD, and the greater prevalence of date rape.
It seems to me that all that was accomplished by the sexual revolution was that one set of expectations was replaced with anorther, and both are damaging to women.
by 
It was indeed a sexual revolution. A lot of new ideas were tried. Some found to be good things (Equality in the workplace, family planning, access to education), and some found to be bad (The excesses of promiscuity, experimentation with drugs). It’s taken up to today, and a couple of backlash moments in between, to seperate these out and decide which ones to stick with. The process is still ongoing.
I think the article overlooks the benefits of the sexual revolution. Yes, we’ve got teenagers out of control and pressured into sex, and even children in sexy outfits – but we’ve also given women a social status almost the same as that of men. They can be educated, hold jobs, go into any career they want. Their life no longer consists of finding a man to support them and pushing out babies for him, and even when married they are still able to have a career. You couldn’t do that when any sexual activity would unavoidably leave her with children to care for.
It’s a mixed bag, but you can’t take the good without the bad. If you want individual freedom and sexual autonomy, you’ll have to accept that some people will abuse it. That’s just the price that must be paid.
If you want something to blame that has no redeeming value at all, I suggest you look at the advertising industry. It’s probably done more to promote open sexualisation of everything than the pornography industry could hope to dream of.
It’s too bad the article didn’t address such as issues as the feminization of poverty, 1 out of 3 women has or will get an STD, and the greater prevalence of date rape.
It seems to me that all that was accomplished by the sexual revolution was that one set of expectations was replaced with anorther, and both are damaging to women.