Sexual liberation or sexual slavery

[Conservationist]

Interesting:

I used to know a woman who was very beautiful. In fact, she was the most beautiful woman I have ever known, perfect in every way, like a goddess. She had high cheekbones and doe-like eyes and a  voice that was unusually deep for a woman but which added to her overall mystery and remarkable beauty. I knew her as a child, she was a few years older, and I have followed her life ever since. For years she had many lovers and one central boyfriend. They were perfecting their intimacy, this man and she, and both hedged about getting married. They went back and forth for years, dissecting their relationship. Finally, when she was in her mid-forties, he decided that the thing he wanted most in life was to have children. Needless to say, it was too  late for her. She is still good-looking and has since found another man,  incredibly wealthy and recently divorced. He asked her to quit her job and help him raise his young children. She did. He promised marriage but has since decided he’d rather not. He did, however, buy her a new car. For all those years of love, this ravishingly beautiful and self-assured woman has one thing left: a car.

This is a relatively trivial example of the harm the sexual revolution has caused. A river of tears runs through our culture.  Sex is miraculous and we have made it dull and destructive, murderous even and cruel. But, I don’t have to tell you all this. You already know it. You have found happiness, but you still see the waste, the loss of something sacred.

http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2010/05/how-to-reverse-sexual-liberation/#more-10773

Well-written, if nothing else.

It seems to me that people decide our majority culture is an oppressor, and as a result, decide to become hedonists -- as if admitting there's nothing to be done except to please oneself until death.

They are then surprised when this emotionally bleak path leads to nothing but more bleakness, more emptiness, and fewer connections to others. This is why most hippies either went conservative in their 30s or turned into gilded burnouts.

A river of tears, indeed.

[JewishPhysics]

I don't know what you're talking about.  Sexual liberation has had no negative impact on our culture. *heavy sarcasm, for the obtuse

[Heydrich]

I am of the age to have seen this unfold first-hand. Almost invariably, those women I can think of that followed a more traditional path are quite happy, productive and well adjusted in life. Those who chose a path similar to that in the above article ended up much as she did - and in many cases, not even that good!

Sexual liberation, at least from the childish prudery of the Victorian era (that hung on for decades), began as a reasonable pursuit, and like all things in modern society, was promptly derailed and twisted into a hedonistic/hyper-individualistic journey to nowhere. Sure it probably felt good along the way - so does eating a tub of ice-cream and fatty foods every day...it's the inevitable results that are not nearly so satisfying and ultimately self-destructive. The ayatollas of the brave new, liberal way somehow failed to note that.       

[scourge]

45 years after the Civil Rights movement the young minority male is today the most underemployed and incarcerated demographic. What's going on? Civilization cannot operate by demands that are delivered prior to the delivery of results. We go nowhere as a whole with a bunch of justifications and claims with some later promises of delivery.

Performance must come first in order for reward to follow. The inverse is like our financial system where the loan comes first and the means of repayment is a secondary consideration. Default and loss of credit is the default result under this design.

[Nimbostratus]

Well-written, if nothing else.

It seems to me that people decide our majority culture is an oppressor, and as a result, decide to become hedonists -- as if admitting there's nothing to be done except to please oneself until death.

They are then surprised when this emotionally bleak path leads to nothing but more bleakness, more emptiness, and fewer connections to others. This is why most hippies either went conservative in their 30s or turned into gilded burnouts.

A river of tears, indeed.

I find sexual liberation to be very coercive actually, and culturally oppressive if you choose celibacy or the choice of a stable partner. But if you care about the world that it's ahead your lifetime, you know that the coming generations need a stable center of learning (no, not the State) that means responsible families that know how to deal with problems as a group.

They go conservatives because that's the nature of reproduction

I don't know what you're talking about.  Sexual liberation has had no negative impact on our culture. *heavy sarcasm, for the obtuse

haha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3MjqcZCMD8&

[Sammaellofi]

What's odd about sexual liberation is that nothing was at all liberated.  Instead of achieving its original goal of showing the world that sex is not such a big deal, its followers instead kept sex as a taboo and instead of enjoying the beauty of sex, chose to enjoy the "fun" of breaking a taboo and doing something "naughty" and "dangerous".  It was pressed on by corporation (though they are not to blame) in order to further single people out from eachother and make them more vulnerable to add campaigns.  Being naughty in bed is the same as being naughty and buying that new car.

But sex itself is still unliberated.  I have read a lot of ancient poetry from Egypt, Greece and the Orient and these groups clearly had a far more free and realistic idea of sex.  In fact, if someone made a huge anthology of all sexual poetry throughout human history, they would find the earliest poems to be the most explorative and intimate, but they would find the final poems, which were written in a supposed sexual revolution, to be shady and sneaky, talking about sex in whispers as if their parents were in the next room, as if what they were saying was of any shock value at all.

Let's all just grow up.  Sex is not a sin, but sex is not anything to have a revolution about either.  It happens in life, no matter what our opinion of it is, so let's worry about something else.

[Prospero]

The sexual fantasies of men are over-exposed and the fantasies of women undisclosed.

For a long time I thought that sexual desires in a woman made her a slut. Most of the men around me seemed to believe it too. They were fine with this idea. They wanted women to be sluts. It troubled me. Women can't all be sluts or else only women with no sexual desires would be decent. How could any kindhearted man engage himself sexually with any female if only him would benefit from the pleasure. Seduction is hitherto trivialized and the man either consumes pornography or "real" sluts. In the end he is somewhat satisfied.

I suggest Naomi Wolf's book "Promiscuities". This reading taught me a lot about the struggle of women in this post-sexual revolution world. Women do have desires. Women do worth being seduced. Their fantasies connect to those of man in many ways. Nobody however discusses the desires of women. Naomi Wolf concludes her book by saying that women should discuss sex matters with adolescent girls rather then have Tampon companies do it instead. We are led to believe that men are sexual beasts and only marriage can save them. If the man cannot hold himself, he can still go back to pornography. Either way, investments are made. A couple buys a home, a man subscribes to a porn site... If you are interested in the "myth" of the couple, I also suggest you read Eric Zemmour's "Le Premier Sexe" ("The First Sex", in French only).

I feel the best way is to get to know women. Between pornography and marriage there is friendship, seduction, love and trust.

[hoodwink]

The sexual fantasies of men are over-exposed and the fantasies of women undisclosed.

fine post.

sexual liberation like so many other "progressive" cultural movements is nothing more than an oppressed group trying to be more like the oppressor; in this case, women deciding that behaving like a stereotypical male is a stamp of enlightenment.  really, it's nothing more than a convenient tool to explain away promiscuity.  I have no problem with women deciding they want to be sluts and I can't understand why anyone else would be intimidated by this either.  that said, hiding behind your promiscuous lifestyle with a word like "liberated" is odious.

[AnHero]

... If you are interested in the "myth" of the couple, I also suggest you read Eric Zemmour's "Le Premier Sexe" ("The First Sex", in French only).

I feel the best way is to get to know women. Between pornography and marriage there is friendship, seduction, love and trust.

"The myth of the couple" Sound really progressive. Especially since every human culture has had a form of marriage and put little stock in love outside of it. Why is that, you think?

[Prospero]

... If you are interested in the "myth" of the couple, I also suggest you read Eric Zemmour's "Le Premier Sexe" ("The First Sex", in French only).

I feel the best way is to get to know women. Between pornography and marriage there is friendship, seduction, love and trust.

"The myth of the couple" Sound really progressive. Especially since every human culture has had a form of marriage and put little stock in love outside of it. Why is that, you think?

From the history I learned and the anthropology courses I've taken, I can say that most marriages are business transactions. I do not deny the possibility that one can meet a wonderful person that would be both a life-long friend and a never-ending source of desire, but I do believe such an encounter rarely occurs. In the end, I cannot really see a "solution" to that. If I understand what you said, marriage are always made but affairs are also led on the side. Hopefully so, because Emile Zola and Oscar Wilde would have had nothing to write about.

[AnHero]

From the history I learned and the anthropology courses I've taken, I can say that most marriages are business transactions. I do not deny the possibility that one can meet a wonderful person that would be both a life-long friend and a never-ending source of desire, but I do believe such an encounter rarely occurs. In the end, I cannot really see a "solution" to that. If I understand what you said, marriage are always made but affairs are also led on the side.

Marriage takes love and sex and puts it in a constructive context. Affairs and seductions do not.

Staying loyal to that marriage makes it stronger and the family built from it stronger. Affairs and seductions do not.

Marriage builds a family. Indulging one's desire accomplishes very little.

The ideal of life-long chastity/monogamy is an ideal like any other - it's not going to be fulfilled by everyone, but we should at least try to match the spirit of it. It's just like honesty. We decide one behavior is more constructive than another and strive for it. Does the fact that no one is perfect or no marriage is perfect explain away indiscretions? Or the lying about them?

I not going going to be puritan about it and scorn every "impure" sexual act or expression of desire, but our societal mentality has gone from "This is the right way" to "Nobody's perfect" to "There's nothing wrong with it, really." See a problem there?

And if you think I'm being too romantic about the idea of love and trust in marriage, isn't an individual also being unnecessarily romantic when they engage in affair? Except one has a purpose and one does not.

I do not deny the possibility that one can meet a wonderful person that would be both a life-long friend and a never-ending source of desire, but I do believe such an encounter rarely occurs. In the end, I cannot really see a "solution" to that.

It isn't about who the people are, but what they do. That's how an unsatisfying marriage can turn into a very happy one with the same people. Taking the same approach with a different, but similar, person will have the same results.

It's amazing how often I hear about marrieds who become dissatisfied with their sex life and never even TALK to their spouse about it. They just cheat instead. People who take time to find something that works for them end up much happier and don't need extra partners. I think it's more satisfying to have someone you can count on than always be looking for a new romance and having your spouse do the same. At that point you might as well not even sleep in the same bed or even the same room, what's the point?

I can only be so sure about these things, because I've never been married for 30 years before, so instead I read from people who have. I think their accounts are worth more than relationship advice from pickup artists or Oscar Wilde.

[Prospero]

Certainly, I do not praise nymphomania, or satyriasis for that matter.

I not going going to be puritan about it and scorn every "impure" sexual act or expression of desire, but our societal mentality has gone from "This is the right way" to "Nobody's perfect" to "There's nothing wrong with it, really." See a problem there?

That is very true. I'd say the "Nobody's perfect" statement relates to most people, but "There's nothing wrong with it, really" to newer generations which seem to carry the message. Bisexuality, for example, has become a trend or "rite of passage" amongst young people.

Allow to discuss personal experience and not be factual. As I said, I still believe in the idea of building a strong union, but I am surrounded by people who see no real issue with engaging in a random sexual intercourse and having various fuck-friends. Nasty sexual lifestyle for the most part. One could argue that I should change group, but the fact is that I consider myself part of different groups of people (all college or university students on the whole however). The only sexually reasonable people there is are seemingly heavily religious people. Most of them recent immigrants (to North America) and from what I gather, they often do "bend" the rules with people of their own culture. In fact, their allegiance to religion is an allegiance to an ethnicity or race. What's left are religious fanatics, puritans, like you say you are not. You probably aren't, only unselfish. But how many people like you is there in the "real world"?

This is where I am left with no solution except maybe establishing some kind totalitarian government that could control people, mass execution for the weak minded or religion. I feel I do my part in this chaos for I consider myself somewhat detached from the student lifestyle.

[Charles Marlow]

Funnily enough I thought from the title that this thread was about how women hold the right of sex, and are perceived in popular culture to be the sexual decision-makers.

I have to posit in this discussion the suggestion that marriage is the exemplar which defies man's primordial instincts.

It is found in all cultures that a small proportion of men are disproportionately laying all of the women; the alpha males, of which studies suggest have a stronger sexual drive due to theory of natural selection.

My point is that monogamy is unnatural. Look back through time, it was used as a tool of oppression. We humans are not happily monogamous creatures. We must use this knowledge in our quest to build a greater society.

Mods should delete my comment if the nature of my suggestions appear to conflict with this forum's agenda of instilling traditional values.

[Athanasius contra mundum]

Funnily enough I thought from the title that this thread was about how women hold the right of sex, and are perceived in popular culture to be the sexual decision-makers.

I have to posit in this discussion the suggestion that marriage is the exemplar which defies man's primordial instincts.

It is found in all cultures that a small proportion of men are disproportionately laying all of the women; the alpha males, of which studies suggest have a stronger sexual drive due to theory of natural selection.

My point is that monogamy is unnatural. Look back through time, it was used as a tool of oppression. We humans are not happily monogamous creatures. We must use this knowledge in our quest to build a greater society.

Mods should delete my comment if the nature of my suggestions appear to conflict with this forum's agenda of instilling traditional values.

The last comment was unnecessary, as it creates an all-purpose defense mechanism. All of a sudden any desire to cull side-tracking commentary becomes the censorship of pretentious moderators who feel that they are elite simply because they associate themselves with the word tradition, and you by definition, the censored, must be some sort of heroic martyr who by nature of being opposed to pretension is a humble god whom everyone should praise for your down-to-earthiness.

However, the rest of the comment was awesome. I feel that human beings are unhappy when monogamous because of our purely functional contemplation of such acts. The idea associated with whether we are happy or not with our sexual practices is not inherent, and thus when we attempt to attribute an absolute meaning to it, whether based in ideal (as in marriage), or function (as in open sexuality with anyone one wishes and can attract), we destroy a sense of accomplishment associated with basing our value of the act within our goals for society. Perhaps if we saw the rise of two cultures, one that celebrates marriage simply as a joyous virtue for the sake of it, and one that viewed open sexuality the same way, we could truly see which idea was naturally superior. Personally I'm all for any value that within the cultural framework applies a sense of achievement, experience, reverence of the experience, and growth to both the individual, the community, and higher still the spirit of that people.

[hoodwink]

[The last comment was unnecessary, as it creates an all-purpose defense mechanism. All of a sudden any desire to cull side-tracking commentary becomes the censorship of pretentious moderators who feel that they are elite simply because they associate themselves with the word tradition, and you by definition, the censored, must be some sort of heroic martyr who by nature of being opposed to pretension is a humble god whom everyone should praise for your down-to-earthiness.

two things:

1.  I don't see how his post was redolent of "side-tracking commentary".  While I don't necessarily agree with his rationale, arguing about the utility of marriage and the need for sexual conquests is a direct rebuttal to the logic of the original post. 
2.  It's interesting to see that there is now a perception on this board of an conservative agenda.  I can't imagine such a thing being posted even a year ago.