This question is actually inspired in part by Bill Maher. On his show recently, he said with talk of gay marriage and the like, clearly the Liberals won the so-called Sexual Revolution of the 60s and 70s.
Yeah, as I’ve said before on these boards, I was born in 1968. So my life began basically at ground zero of the Sexual Revolution. I do remember people talking alot about it. But also realize, I was just a kid. So I didn’t understand it all.
If you ask me, I think it is a draw basically, betw. conservatism and liberals. Sure we talk alot about things like gay marriage. But on the other hand, how many states have actually enacted laws to protect it? Where I live (MI), they even have a state constitutional amendment outlawing it. (And it is in the Bill of Rights of the Mich. constitution! Discriminating against gay people is a constitutional right in Michigan! I digress…)
Also, it is worth pointing out how we can talk openly about topics that were once taboo to even mention, like date rape and incest. So as I said, it is not clear if either side really won…
I think you are making a huge mistake by associating the sexual revolution with gay rights/gay marriage issues. I think they are two totally separate phenomena.
The sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s was fundamentally a heterosexual revolution. It was about straight men and women wanting to be more promiscuous, more open about their sex lives, and not made to feel guilty for enjoying sex. This was the majority of America - even if the majority of America was not actually “participating” in the sexual revolution, the majority of America could at least relate to wanting to have more sex. Everyone likes sex.
The gay issues of the past two decades are different. They involve a small minority that a lot of people can’t relate to, and it’s ultimately an issue of politicians being afraid of losing the votes of stubborn pig-headed religious conservatives. The gay issue isn’t even really about sex, it’s about marriage and family.
This is the opposite of the 60s sexual revolution, which was all about separating sexuality from the strictures of marriage and family.
I actually think that the spate of “gay marriage amendments” is a sign of the success of the gay rights movement. These amendments are basically the anti-gay crowd saying, “we know that we are losing the battle for hearts and minds on this issue, and eventually this is going to happen, but here’s something we can put up right now that you’ll have to take down before it can happen”.
A constitutional amendment is an override of democracy – something that says, “you can’t do this, even if it has overwhelming popular support”. The anti-gay crowd pushing for them is a tacit admission that in a generation gay marriage will have overwhelming popular support, which is something they weren’t scared of a generation ago.
I don’t know if looking at the sexual revolution as an event where one side won and the other lost is all that useful. Certainly things changed for the better in many cases but I bet there were new challenges as well.
Who won the sexual revolution? I did. The first time I visited my now wife at her college I had to sleep in the men’s dorm and she had to sneak me into her room. The last time there was no issue.
But as far as it goes everyone is a liberal in terms of sex, except for a few hypocrites. Proof: the far right Republican candidate for VP’s daughter was knocked up by her boyfriend, and no one really cared.
As far as gay marriage goes, it is a last stand by people who failed to keep the openly gay from teaching, politics, and pretty much anywhere except for the old stereotyped professions where it was ok.
I agree with what you said but I also add the demise of the sexual double standard as a casualty of the sexual revolution. The traditional standard was that a man was supposed to have sex but not with the girl he was going to marry. He was supposed to have sex with “bad” girls and then marry a “good” girl (who was supposed to stay a virgin until her wedding night).
The sexual revolution killed this idea and made it acceptable for men and women to engage in sex on more equal terms.
It also put porn mags on the shelves of supermarkets and naked chicks strutting their silicone tits on adds all over town and in general a tremendous increase in public sexualisation of the female body. No doubt helping a lot of girls develop various mental disorders. Don’t know if it was a fair trade for the rest, but men scored big. Men were the victors of the sexual revolution. Liberté, égalité, fraternité!
It perhaps is more of a evolution, people refusing to fit into precast molds, and not ashamed about who they are. As such there is no real loser, though people who cast the molds will lose power, but that power was never theirs to begin with and obtained illegitimately and the expense of people’s happiness and fulfillment.
Women are now expected to have it all: good jobs, education, cooking skills, and looks. We didn’t trade in much, we just added more to our plate. Oh, and we have more sex–apparently like porn stars, too.
thinks a moment
I’d also say children having sex at younger ages is an indirect result of the sexual revolution. They definitely lost.
Nonsense. Gay rights began to be an issue, and the situation for gays began to improve, in the 1960s at just the time the sexual revolution was getting going for heterosexuals too. Homosexuality was decriminalized in Britain (for over 21s) in 1967, and the Stonewall riots, usually taken to mark the start of the U.S. gay rights movement, were in 1969. By the early 1970s (at the latest) overt lesbians were a force within the feminist movement. The start of the sexual revolution for gays pretty much coincided with that for straights. It was all part of the same zeitgeist.
Of course, the gays had a lot further to go in terms of sexual rights, and haven’t got all the way there yet, whereas the pendulum started to swing back the other way again for straights a long time ago now. But the revolution (such as it was) began at about the same time for both orientations.
And yes, for the straights the “liberals” undoubtedly won at the time, but the counter-revolution has made a lot inroads over the last quarter century or so. For gays it has been a much longer road to travel, and they haven’t entirely ‘won’ yet, but they have made a heck of a lot of progress.
I was just young when they came out with ‘The Pill’. No one referred to it any other way, at the time, as that was indiscreet. Married couples, on TV had twin beds! No one dared speak of things like rape, or fertility issues, menopause, anything sexual really. Abortion was illegal, homosexuality was best kept secret, no one but a married couple could adopt, and most women in the work force were nurses and secretaries. Universities, largely male enclaves.
With the pill women gained reproductive determination, and that changed everything. Access to abortion, university, higher management/careers.
I would classify gay rights as more of a civil rights issue. Are this subset of people as good/worthy as the rest of us.
I disagree, in fact I think it’s the opposite. Although we are approaching the time when gay rights will have overwhelming support, the constitutional amendments are passing in areas where the majority are homophobic. The goal of passing a constitutional amendment is to allow the majority to override the constitutional protections of the minority. The anti-gay crowd is much more worried about the judiciary than they are about a law passed by a legislature.