Sally

Sexual Revolution

45 posts in this topic

I copied this from Miss Representation--a group that is against sexualizing women for the purposing of advertising, sex slavery, discrimination, etc:

"The sexual revolution, which rode into town on the backs of those pink plastic cases of birth-control pills, was, after all, not so much a matter of sleeping around as it was of having the ability to decide when you were going to have a child, and then deciding how many children you wanted to have."

Agree or disagree? Thoughts?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

without actually knowing any specifics into the subject - I would have guessed the sexual revolution was like the 60's 70's sleeping around and sexual freedom, premarital sex etc, whereas what you describe would be more part of the feminist movement.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was a mix of both, but probably more about deciding when and how many kids to have since the pill wouldn't protect against anything else. My dad was born in 1950 and he has enough siblings to start a baseball team, my mom has a bunch too and she was born in 1960. Around that time it seemed like it was the mother's job to have a bunch of kids. I think the pill provided women with an opportunity to be in control of how many kids they had, and it probably has a lot to do with why average family sizes are a lot smaller now.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the pill is evil. Not from a relegious or pro/con womans choice issue but that the SERIOUS side effects it can cause a woman. It messes up their harmones. I am of the mind that anything NOT natural should not be put inside the mouth. You are essentially putting chemicals in your mouth for the purpose of stopping the natural design of things. The chemical inbalance it imposes on women is just bad juju. My humble opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Computer fox, i've always asked myself countless times... if there was a pill for MEN that caused a myriad of sexual and non-sexual side effects, and posed a series of potential long term health risks, would society want anything to do with it? The male pill was supposed to be a reality a long time ago but it keeps getting held up.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm almost certain it was more about letting you have casual sex than about deciding when you have children. In fact, I think the idea behind the whole promotion of it was that "feminists" thought that it was unfair that men could have casual sex without worrying about getting pregnant, and they wanted to be able to have sex like men.

if there was a pill for MEN that caused a myriad of sexual and non-sexual side effects, and posed a series of potential long term health risks, would society want anything to do with it? The male pill was supposed to be a reality a long time ago but it keeps getting held up.

Well, apparently, when they were developing the female birth control pill, they were working on the male birth control pill at the same time. They tested the pills on some people in the third-world (I guess they figured the rich White Western people wouldn't care if they died). In the studies, they found that there were side effects for both the male and female pills. At least 3 women died from taking the pill. Some men experienced a slight testicular shrinkage. Guess which side effect they thought was unacceptable? So they just lowered the dosage a little on the female pill so they could sell it.

There's still a lot of side effects to taking the pill. Other than the health risks to women, because so many women are taking them, the synthetic oestrogen ends up in the water. It means that it's having an effect on fish, sterilising them. It also means that men now have an increased risk of getting prostate cancer because they drink the water too. And, if a women gets pregnant with a baby boy while she's on the pill, he'll have an increased risk of prostate cancer too.

Doesn't really seem fair to me: because of women's "rights" to have casual sex, men have to get cancer.

xxx

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I copied this from Miss Representation--a group that is against sexualizing women for the purposing of advertising, sex slavery, discrimination, etc:

"The sexual revolution, which rode into town on the backs of those pink plastic cases of birth-control pills, was, after all, not so much a matter of sleeping around as it was of having the ability to decide when you were going to have a child, and then deciding how many children you wanted to have."

Agree or disagree? Thoughts?"

I'm not a woman, but I completely disagree.

The "sexual revolution" was and IS about sleeping around/"hooking up". (It might also be about birth control, but that's a secondary factor, not a primary factor.)

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

speaking of side effects of the pill - once I read some article about the effects of the hormones being released into the environment having being linked to cancers or something. The effects on the human population are not very well known yet - but as more and more use the pill, more and more is released into the environment - urination etc. A quick search brought up this article

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/EE2-changes-trout-chromosome-number

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether or not you agree with the quote in question, I think it's incredibly refreshing that there are definitely people and groups "rebelling" against casual sex/hookup culture, and realize that the only people that casual sex/hooking up "liberates" is men... as if men needed to be liberated any further.

Forgive me as I digress slightly. There was a book published several years ago that advocated a return to romance, chivalry, modesty etc. and it was a powerful book which is probably why it sparked a firestorm; the author was blasted by groups and people who held less traditional views of sex. This author even received death threats! At the same time, she received tear jerking letters of support from young women who were disenchanted with the hook up culture and who felt that there was something wrong with them because they didn't want casual sex.

Would you guys would be interested in seeing an article/book review on this book or not really? Be honest, there's plenty of other stuff to write about.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where did you hear that?

Jason Evert spoke about it in one of his talks, I think. Most of the stuff's on his website:

http://chastity.com/chastity-qa/birth-control/methods/birth-control-pills/birth-

Would you guys would be interested in seeing an article/book review on this book or not really? Be honest, there's plenty of other stuff to write about.

That book sounds awesome! What's it called? I'm sure it'd make a great article, just the story behind it alone.

xxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me as I digress slightly. There was a book published several years ago that advocated a return to romance, chivalry, modesty etc. and it was a powerful book which is probably why it sparked a firestorm; the author was blasted by groups and people who held less traditional views of sex. This author even received death threats! At the same time, she received tear jerking letters of support from young women who were disenchanted with the hook up culture and who felt that there was something wrong with them because they didn't want casual sex.

Would you guys would be interested in seeing an article/book review on this book or not really? Be honest, there's plenty of other stuff to write about.

Absolutely! Any chance you are referring to Wendy Shalit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the birth control pill should be given to unmarried women. There are many side-effects, the main one being a strong decrease in the libido. It also can impact your health. I mean, a completely unexpected side-effect of birth control was that it helped get rid of acne...that sounds great but it was totally by accident that they had that affect. Condoms have no side-effects, they do a lot to protect against diseases, and they are a lot cheaper. There are so many different, safer kinds of birth control than the pill.

I don't get the purpose of the pill because they had condoms, diaphragms, and other forms of birth control before the pill came out. As far as I am concerned, the heavy use of the pill can be blamed for the spread of STDs and STIs. Unmarried people should stick to condoms to protect themselves so they can enjoy unprotected sex in marriage (by "unprotected" I mean use birth control other than condoms that help sex be more pleasurable.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't really seem fair to me: because of women's "rights" to have casual sex, men have to get cancer.

Well because of men's "rights" to have casual sex, women had to face pregnancy, social rejection, and slut-shaming. Even stoning in many countries in the world. I do think it is completely unfair to say women can't have casual sex while men can enjoy it as much as they want without being judged. However, for the sake of the female health, I don't think the birth control pill should be used. No one should be having casual sex without condoms anyways, even if the girl is on the pill. Of course, if I had it my way, everyone would wait until committed relationships but that won't happen. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sophie I think you misinterpret Jegsy's comment. He is stating that men who are not even involved in casual sex are exposed to the danger of the pill due to it contaminating the water supply. It is not a woman vs mens right statement. The "women had to face pregnancy, social rejection, and slut-shaming" all had a say (with exception of henious crime) in the matter where a 6 year old boy drinking tap water does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sophie I think you misinterpret Jegsy's comment. He is stating that men who are not even involved in casual sex are exposed to the danger of the pill due to it contaminating the water supply. It is not a woman vs mens right statement. The "women had to face pregnancy, social rejection, and slut-shaming" all had a say (with exception of henious crime) in the matter where a 6 year old boy drinking tap water does not.

Yeah, that was pretty much my point!

(Oh, and it's "she", by the way... :lol: )

xxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sophie I think you misinterpret Jegsy's comment. He is stating that men who are not even involved in casual sex are exposed to the danger of the pill due to it contaminating the water supply. It is not a woman vs mens right statement. The "women had to face pregnancy, social rejection, and slut-shaming" all had a say (with exception of henious crime) in the matter where a 6 year old boy drinking tap water does not.

I see. Is there solid scientific evidence that says the pill gives men cancer? Either way, while I do not really approve of the use of the pill, I think it is very unfair to blame women for that, seeing as it was a team of men who created it. Not saying Jegsy is blaming women.

I do not support the use of the pill because yes, there are many side-effects, most of which affect females. I am sure, that with the rapid advancement of science, there will one day be a pill that is completely safe. I look forward to that day. But meanwhile, I do think that condoms are the best choice. Or NuvaRing? There are lots of other options, but only condoms protect from diseases.

And I think (although I am not entirely certain) that the pill was created to help prevent unwanted pregnancies, not to help women sleep around. I think...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sophie (and anyone else), check out the latest comment from Rachel on the Pill article... scary stuff!!!

Gosh...Hence why I'm going to use Natural Family Planning...

xxx

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether or not you agree with the quote in question, I think it's incredibly refreshing that there are definitely people and groups "rebelling" against casual sex/hookup culture, and realize that the only people that casual sex/hooking up "liberates" is men... as if men needed to be liberated any further.

We'd be a pretty pathetic group of waiters if we didn't rebel against the hookup culture. lol. I completely agree that the sexual revolution only benefits men but at the same time it hurts women greatly. The negative effects on women go beyond the hook up culture. Some feminist schools of thought believe women to "own" her sexuality in a way that if she chose to work in the porn industry or even as a prostitute, then it is somehow liberating. At best, it is oppression hidden under the illusion of choice. While on short term, it may seem like women are empowered by profiting off sex and having power over men, in reality it is reinforcing the idea in men's eyes that women are nothing more than pieces of meat to be disposed of when there is no more use for them.

There was a book published several years ago that advocated a return to romance, chivalry, modesty etc. and it was a powerful book which is probably why it sparked a firestorm; the author was blasted by groups and people who held less traditional views of sex. This author even received death threats!

Oh no! God forbid someone wrote a book on the radical idea that women should be treated with respect. I guess the sexual revolution made that idea uncool.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some feminist schools of thought believe women to "own" her sexuality in a way that if she chose to work in the porn industry or even as a prostitute, then it is somehow liberating. At best, it is oppression hidden under the illusion of choice. While on short term, it may seem like women are empowered by profiting off sex and having power over men, in reality it is reinforcing the idea in men's eyes that women are nothing more than pieces of meat to be disposed of when there is no more use for them.

YOU ARE SO RIGHT. I hate how promiscuous girls are called "sexually liberated." it's the exact opposite as far as I am concerned because in reality, they are just making their bodies mere objects to men. If all women held out until true love, or marriage, objectification rates would go WAY down. Sex and the City is a guilty pleasure of mine, but only because I enjoy laughing at all the characters (except Charlotte.) They always complain about how they're still single and no man takes them seriously, and I just think "maybe if you waited until at least the third date before putting out....?" If all a girl wants is too have lots of "fun," then fine. But I can't stand it when promiscuous girls complain about not being able to get into a committed relationship. Whether you are a guy or a girl, no one is going to take you seriously if you put out so early in the relationship.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now