I’d ask for a cite but since there’s really no reliable data from before the mid-20th century there’s no point.
This reads like another “things were better back in the good old days” post, which leads me to my answer: Everyone who’s not anti-sex won in the sexual revolution.
Agreed. [flick] [puff] Was it good for you, too?
The hedonists and libertines. Although that said fornication was quite common in the past and its trends have been cyclic. Hopefully it shall go down soon.
well, the men definitely won the heterosexual revolution…women kind of shot themselves in the face with the whole you-can-have-it-all attitude that made them have kids and get jobs and do everything else while the men sit on their arses.
I wasn’t aware 12 year old girls were giving blowjobs in the 60s. Pardon my ignorance.
Part of teenage pregnancy stats is that they’re calculating unwed mothers. So the rate of single mothers has gone up considerably.
I really don’t think the ‘movement’ was intended to encourage younger premarital sex.
A Google search brings wikias a first hit - not always the most reliable thing, but.
Teens now may be getting pregnant at 16 like they were 60 years ago, but teen moms now aren’t married and the rise of single households has tripled. One third of girls are getting pregnant by the age of 20.
Not only are girls getting pregnant so young, but a woman may have children by two or three men…add that now it takes two incomes to raise a child, I’d say young girls lost. Girls aren’t allowed to be girls anymore - they’re supposed to be women by the age of twelve.
Because they’ve stopped forcing girls into marriage against their wills, or whisking them away for secret abortions. Teen pregnancy peaked in the 50s; it’s just that they weren’t given any choice about what to do about it since women & girls were regarded basically as domestic animals at the time.
You post this just days after you tell us that you sent girls stories so obscene that you don’t even want to show them to us.
You are going to make an outstanding right-wing Christian politician some day. Your name will be among the greats, like Craig, Foley, Haggard.
I’ll even vote for you if you send me a copy of the story.
Twelve year old girls were giving blowjobs in 6000 BC. It was ever thus.
No, baby, let’s hope it goes up again soon, and then down, and then again but faster. 
Has anyone ever seen CitizenPained and Starving Artist in the same room?
World without end, amen.
Given the thread topic, are you sure you want to?
The “sexual revolution” was a combination of many different things, and it’s necessary to split up these things to talk about what happened. The gay rights movement was one of these. To understand what has happened with it, it’s necessary to look at the overall movement and not each specific battle within it. I’ve heard about a study which looked at all the various sorts of rights and attitudes being fought for within gay rights - the legalization of homosexual sex, the banning of discrimination against hiring someone who was known to be gay in various professions, the legalization of gay civil unions, the legalization of gay marriages, the attitude toward electing a openly gay official, the attitude toward having a relative coming out, etc., and this study found that in each region in the U.S., on each of these issues, the opinions were moving towards more rights and more accepting attitudes at about one to two percent points per year on average. So it doesn’t tell us much about the overall change in attitudes to talk about whether a particular ballot issue won or lost in a particular state in a particular year. You have to look at the overall trends, and those are clearly towards more rights and more accepting attitudes, but the changes are slow. All of these changes have taken decades.
I always have to say in discussions like this that I am only talking about the numbers here. I don’t have any interest in discussing whether these trends are good or bad. My personal opinions are irrelevant.
Another trend being thrown around in this thread is the frequency of teenage pregnancy. The percentage of teenage women who get pregnant has, in fact, been slowly dropping since the late 1950’s. While we’re at it, let’s get another trend correct. The percentage of marriages ending in divorce peaked in the early 1980’s and has actually dropped a little since then. The clearest trend though is the decrease in the percentage of people getting married. For the past several decades, the percentage of people who ever get married has been dropping.
Oh, one other trend: The decline in the percentage of people getting married in the U.S. is clearest among the poorest people. The percentage of upper-middle-class to rich people ever getting married has only decreased a small amount. The percentage of poor to working-class people ever getting married has decreased by a lot.
Can you explain why this is a bad thing without invoking God/religion, I wonder?
The Confucian value-system includes pretty strict sexual morality for a culture that tolerates courtesans – at least, Confucian student-boys used to be kept carefully sexless by their tutors – apparently because acting on the sexual passions without restraint is considered, well, not immoral in the Christian sense, but undignified and ungentlemanly.
I just stated what happened. I wasn’t making commentary and I certainly do not support government regulating people’s (consensual) sex lives.
STDs, pregnancies leading to abortion, and similar wonderful stuff.
Considering birth control was legalized in many states, and for non-married couples, and we saw the advent of the Pill, can you back that up with a cite or two?
Naw. That stuff is cool. Allegedly.
To give an example, teen pregnancy rates are highest among developed countries in the sexually free United States and UK as opposed to the more conservative Japan and South Korea