The sixties sexual liberation damaged society

Dame Joan Bakewell, who opposed a crusade against sex in broadcasting in the 60s, has said the freedom granted to women by the pill has been corrupted and ended in the sexualisation of young girls. Essentially she is now agreeing with her opponent Mary Whitehouse on part of the issue. The pill gave women the choice but this has increasingly opened the way for money to have a much bigger place in sex and sexualisation.

The sixties sexual liberation damaged society
Yes because...

it aided women in the work place

and consequently the family as a unit suffered. With women going to work as well as men, who is looking after children? Increasingly the state has had to take on this role. This has had devastating effects on society. Children are not being brought up with due care and attention as the state is being increasingly burdened by these children whose mothers have flown the nest. The sexual revolution of the 60's has caused nothing but reckless abandon.

No because...

This argument makes little or no sense. How can the argument logically flow that society has been burdened by having to educate more and more children due to a pill coming out that allows women to stop having so many children?

We have seen great reductions in the average number of children per family. 20 years ago the figure was commonly quoted as 2.4 now the figure is more like 1.9. So there are in fact less children for the state to look after. The only thing is that before this revolution, the state neglected its duty of care to female students. Since becoming recognised/recognized by employers, the state then started to recognise/recognize women as worth educating. This is not damaging to society!!

Counter:
Marriage hasn't been done away with altogether.
Who took care of children born out of wedlock before the sixties? It is my understanding that bastard children of that forgone era were either traveling to the rest of Europe with their mothers who pretended they were siblings, or killed or thrown into the street or very rarely dropped off on a wealthy man's doorstep. At least in this day and age(thanks to the sixties) unwed mothers have better options/recourse in such a situation.

Read "The history of Tom Jones" (it's not about the singer , it's supposed to be the first 'novel' ever written; It is about a poor woman interested in studying who gets tutored by a well-off member of society who beds/impregnates her and then she leaves "Tom Jones" at the doorstep of a kindly holy christian brother and sister known for their charity etc.
The point being; she left the child on faith; and these situations were ubiquitous back in the day)

The sixties sexual liberation damaged society
Yes because...

it resulted in low self esteem for women

Before the sexual liberation, women were not seen as mere objects to have sex with. They were wives and mothers. Sex outside of wedlock was uncommon as people were scared of pregnancy tying them down to that one person. Therefore, when people did have sex, it was with people they could see themselves spending the rest of their lives with. People considered the consequences of sex. Since this sexual liberation, women have become increasingly sen as mere sexual object. The Pill had taken the womb from the woman and left a mere sexual body. As men began to see women like this, women began to see themselves like this. It is for this very reason that promiscuity is so rife these days. Women are striving to be sexual beings at the expense of their self esteem.

No because...

And what time did Cleopatra(a sexually emancipated unwed woman.) hail from?

African culture in general tends to be freer in that regard. Also during Cleopatra's time; it was common for women of royalty to give themselves up for sex to potential foreign invaders to avert invasion; though these women were usually daughters of kings rather than Queens/Goddesses themselves;unlike Cleo.

What about Mary Magdalene?
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene]]

Are you really suggesting that prostitution did not exist before the sixties?
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_prostitution]]

The sexual revolution of the sixties empowered women; women were already thought of as sex objects functioning generally only/merely as sex-providers (wives/girlfriends/prostitutes/muses-of/in-poetry/objects-of-affection/lust).

The sixties equalized the status quo by objectifying men as well.

The sixties meant emancipation to women; giving us the right to choose whom to bed, whom to marry, etc; rather than choose from a list of oglers or in the case of a low-class/caste women be bedded freely by admirers(euphemism) against choice/approval.

That is not to say; that rape/prostitution has come to a dead stop; hardly. But that these issues have been given much of the attention they need and are being addressed as opposed to their casual acceptance/treatment before the 60s.

Pills taken after sex to inhibit pregnancies have saved countless lives all over the world.Especially for people escaping apartheid/massacres;as they simply cannot afford carrying cooing/crying/wailing babies while they run/hide.

The sixties sexual liberation damaged society
Yes because...

it resulted in an increase in sexually transmitted diseases

Condoms and abstinence are the only ways to avoid sexually transmitted diseases. The Pill resulted in the decline of both of these forms of protection. The Pill is easier to than the condom, and the Pill requires less will power than abstinence. Therefore, increasing amounts of people went out and had casual sex. The result of that being that more people caught disease. The end result of all this is not only more people suffered, but that society had to pay for it. Society had to pay for the health bill. Society had to pay for the ill work force, the economy will have undoubtedly suffered due to people taking more time off of work. Therefore, we can see how the sexual liberation actually had negative effects not only for individuals but for society as a whole.

No because...

Syphilis an entirely curable bacterial (sexually transmitted disease) S.T.D was one of the main causes of death in England in the late 1800s when Bram stoker wrote Dracula the novel.[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracula_%282006_film%29#Plot_summary]]
[[http://www.bbc.co.uk/northamptonshire/content/image_galleries/bbc_one_dracula_cast_gallery.shtml?7]]

In fact Dracula's vampire-condition is academically thought of as inspired by the symptoms of the disease.

Back in the day, contraception was unheard of. No measures were taken to prevent S.T.Ds because there was no awareness. And as mentioned earlier S.T.D-related deaths were a plenty.

Thanks to the sixties, S.T.D related fatalities are not our biggest cause of death (Now,trumped entirely by heart/cardio-vascular disease and all kinds of cancer)

The sixties sexual liberation damaged society
Yes because...

freedom of choice destroyed the family

As soon as people started to be able to have sex outside of wedlock, not fearing becoming pregnant less and less people became satisfied with marriage. Not only did the decline of people getting married start, but people already married were suddenly deciding to get divorced. After seeing this apparently freer life, people turned away from marriage. The result of that being that there were less stable homes in which to bring children up in. It is for this reason that politicians are trying to encourage people to stay in marriage by offering tax advantages. Society is now having to bribe people to stay in their marriages. This is how low society has sunk since the sexual liberation of the 1960's.

No because...

So in your opinion the formerly accepted practices of:
Wife beating/rape/murder, Child molestation/beating/rape/murder etc
with no recourse from such mad/psychologically-corrosive treatment were very good for the family?

Divorce has been around for centuries before any 'sexual liberation'. Divorce was introduced in England by King Henry the eighth long before the 60s.

[[http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/The_Procuress.jpg/220px-The_Procuress.jpg]]

The sixties sexual liberation damaged society
No because...

the pill aided women in the workplace

The introduction of the pill has not damaged society, it has made the work place more equal. Women for the first time could take control of their reproduction rate. No longer were they tied to the kitchen and made to have children. They could choose to value their career. Employers then began to see women differently. Not just as walking wombs who were a liability as they were likely to give birth at any given time, but as a productive member of the workforce. Gradually with the improvement and wider availability of the Pill this has increased. This introduction and progression of the Pill has not damaged society but enhanced it.

counter: Day care is provided in a growing number of offices.

Yes because...

People have looked into the statistics in this area, and upon the sexual revolution occurring, single parenthood increased three-fold [[Permissive Society: America, 1941-1965; Alan Petigny]]. With this statistic in mind, how can single parenthood aid women into the work place?

Surely as a single parent, getting into the world of work is far more difficult? To get a job you would need a baby sitter, but the cost renders that many women decide to just stay at home and claim from the state. How has this helped society one bit?

The sixties sexual liberation damaged society
No because...

the pill allowed wives to choose how many children they have

The pill and the sexual liberation of the 60's go hand in hand. Women can consequently take control of their own fertility with ease.

Condoms were acceptable/legal options for men, the diaphragm however was for a great part, illegal/embarrassing.

The pill offered an effective way for women to take their lives into their own hands. Garnering an independence like never before. This led to women feeling better about themselves. This led to happier women and consequently a happier society; a balanced society.

Yes because...

Contraceptives are not one hundred percent effective.

They also come with deadly side effects(apart from hideous bloating/water-retention they generally cause blood-clotting which can sometimes occur in areas other than the targeted placenta; impeding blood flow and creating a heart condition that would not have existed if contraceptives were not taken. ).

Overuse comes with greater chances of the conditions cited/bracketed above.

The sixties sexual liberation damaged society
No because...

there is no statistic showing that increasing numbers of women became sexually active

In order to claim that sexual liberation, brought on by the availability of the Pill, was/is damaging for society, you would have to show an increasing number of women who are open to casual promiscuous sex as a result.

However, there is no such data available. In fact, studies of women in that time show that women who were already sexually active enjoyed the prospect of the Pill as it enabled them to enjoy sex more freely, but women who were not sexually active remained unaffected and did not suddenly feel the urge to have sex as is suggested here. [[America + The Pill: A History of Promise, Peril, and Liberation; Elizabeth Tyler May]]

counter:

Soldiers and prostitution/rape were heavily linked in the past. The 60s changed that with the coming of war crime tribunals and other such restrictions forcing a greater presence of celibacy in armed forces. Kings from the century before last have been known to bask in brothels.Being covert did in no way imply that it did not happen nor that it wasn't common. It was shameful for the women, men abused; not the men who abused them.

Yes because...

The more awareness there is about female abuse ; the greater chances there are of it being addressed BUT also of it happening.

As murders are inspired by the acts of other murderers,
Pimps too derive/draw inspiration from other pimps; as do rapists, incestuous/non-incestuous child molesters and others.

In the past the practice of sexual intercourse outside of marriage was looked down upon; considered in bad taste. In this zeitgeist; it is celebrated with sexy/hot/turn-on being a compliment rather than equivalent to cheap/lowly/dirty/perverse.

Prostitution is now sometimes seen through a glamorous lens; since it is no longer covert/under-the-hood/an-entirely-shameful-practice.

Men tend to exaggerate the quality/quantity of their sexual experiences; while women tend to play them down; thus no statistic on the issue can be accurate.

Franklin King's alleged child prostitution ring serving the top brass of the U.S political hierarchy is an all too unpleasant reminder of how matters have not improved. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_child_prostitution_ring_allegations]]

The sixties sexual liberation damaged society
No because...

The pill aided young women to act in a n irresponsible way towards what sex really is.

Young women in penury were very irresponsible to begin with. Not irresponsible; willing to sell their bodies for food. The solution to that problem is the provision of food-stamps to people living below the poverty line not to take away the pill and make them pregnant.

What is an act of love? define love?

Love and lust are (sometimes interchangeable) abstract concepts that are defined subjectively by individuals. Who is to say that this has to be a monogamous man-woman bond that lasts forever?

Sexually repressed societies have long been criticized; for causing a plethora of psychological/sexual problems by inhibiting natural impulses; so that when they do pour out they are uncontrollable.

Also the rendition of our current state of affairs on the left is fairly hyperbolic/exaggerated you'd think there are no 14-17 year old virgins anymore. Cases of teen pregnancies and sex are rare(the former being the problem the pill was manufactured to avert/address/counter/solve). The few that do exist make it to scandalous articles at times and are ignored/undiscovered at others. The problem with the assertion on the left is that most teenagers are not that irresponsible.

Yes because...

The pill aided young women to act in a n irresponsible way towards what sex really is:

Even though contraceptives were made to plan how many children a family wanted to have,nowadays it has been used by families and given to young daughters in order to prevent having babies, but this has had an impact in youngsters who take advantage of this situation and having sex has just become a way of living and not an act of love between a couple.



The sixties sexual liberation damaged society

What do you think?
(71%) (29%)

Continue the Debate - Leave a Comment

1 Comment on "The sixties sexual liberation damaged society"

wpDiscuz
Category: