Interesting video. I probably have my own biases in my interpretation. I think the writing is on the wall, but certain people that have been proponents of certain things that "empower" women, are so headstrong that they refuse to see it. And, unfortunately, rational voices are shouted down as being sexist, or misogynist, or some other term to discredit them.

Wasn't sure about posting here or the politics board, but figured this might a place for better dialogue. Though I suspect most people on this board agree with the idea that it's overall bad.

A few takeaways-
-Contraception/the pill kinda is what kicked off the sexual revolution
-Contraception was supposed to decrease abortions, but it had the opposite effect
-Contraception/the sexual revolution has changed the "problem" of pregnancy from something a man and woman had to figure out together, to a burden on the woman -> more fatherless homes, fewer shotgun weddings
-Feminism diverged at some point, and many old school feminists recognized the problems of pornography. However newer feminists encourage it as empowering for women
-Porn leads to problems for men, but subsequently problems for women
-Children have suffered quite a bit due to the downstream effects
-Feminism and the sexual revolution is actually doing more harm than good to women.

I find that these threads/discussions are always started (and had) by men convinced that women have doomed themselves, and never by women.

I love it. Great video. Thank you for posting. Great information.

In the 1920's theological liberalism started to fracture the mainline traditions. I read about this by someone in the time period named J. Gresham Machen. His book is called "Christianity and Liberalism." Basically, the theological liberals denied the infallibility of the Scriptures. They were embarrassed about the miracles in the Bible and wanted to ignore them. It's similar to what Thomas Jefferson did to his Bible by cutting out all of the miraculous. At that time the theological liberals accepted the morals of the Scripture. But the deity of Christ and other things started to become secondary issues. Machen stated that what the liberals had done was not Christianity anymore. It was essentially an entirely new religion.

The 50's had the fundamentalist movement and that helped a little bit for awhile. But secularism was becoming more and more implemented. At the time, people would look around and not see that big of a deal. Secularism must not be that bad.

By the 1960's, the video is correct that birth control aided in the rise of the sexual revolution because the consequences of having free sex were somewhat lessened. Abortions became more common as well.l as the video goes over.

California became the first state in 1969 to permit no-fault divorce. Then the rest of the states followed suit.

Then feminism took off more and more in the 1970's.

Then we've had a sudden rise in gay, lesbian, and now transgenderism.

I believe there is a connection there. The word of God was diminished and the culture suffered.
Why would they accept birth control to begin with? Sin.
Today…Theological liberals are even worse. They've not only rejected the miraculous; they've rejected the morality of the word of God.

In short, we live in an untethered culture.

Well…that's my two cents.

schmendeler said:

---

I find that these threads/discussions are always started (and had) by men convinced that women have doomed themselves, and never by women.

---

We led women down this route by not standing up. Now many of us aren't allowed to stand up. We're mostly untethered.

I think this is related. Many men have ended up going on strike when it comes to church.

For instance, on Father's Day it is always used as a time to tell men to man up.

Could you imagine on Mother's Day if a preacher asked the women in the congregation, "When was the last time you made a pie?"

schmendeler said:

---

I find that these threads/discussions are always started (and had) by men convinced that women have doomed themselves, and never by women.

---

Perhaps. Although I've been more attuned to some of these issues since stumbling on women that are criticizing feminism and what it has done.

I mean, I don't have kids yet, but if I have a daughter one day I don't want her to fall into the trap of modern feminism. I don't want her to think there aren't consequences to promiscuity. Or that she can just put off motherhood until she's in her late 30s, when her fertility is waning. Or choosing motherhood early, or choosing to be a stay at home mom/work part time makes her inferior to a "boss babe" or whatever that chooses to put a career before family.

And I think cultural/media influences tend to reward the loud voices that push against traditionalism. And there are tons of women out there that are never going to have kids because they chose a career before family. And many of them are single, and having a hard time even finding a man because they don't want to "settle" for a man that makes less than them, or is less educated. Quite a few are resorting to sperm banks in their late 30's, or are freezing eggs in their late 30's hoping for a miracle.

It actually is pretty sad, because there's no turning back the clock for them.

ETA: Would like to add that even from a secular viewpoint, science has shown the potential downfalls of the sexual revolution. Women release oxytocin, the bonding hormone, through intimacy. If you're promiscuous, you're making an effort to dissociate that bonding hormone from actual bonding, right? Otherwise you'd keep falling in love with everyone you sleep with. When that happens again and again, how do you one day turn it back on and truly connect with a man?

Then there's fertility mentioned above. Then there's the effect of been a sex worker (only fans "model" or porn star or whatever) has on their brains long term. Let's not forget that most men don't want a women that has slept with everyone. If she has children, her children will one day find out, as will her childrens' friends. The media is trying to make it seem like modern children support this, but I doubt many do.

I dunno, the video makes good points. Promiscuity is good for men. This guy interviewed some anthropologist or something who said historically women actually tended to create societal rules to prevent promiscuity among young women, because 1) they didn't want young women tempting their husbands, 2) the ugly ones don't want competition from the pretty ones, etc. Everyone blames the patriarchy, but women did a lot of those restrictions to themselves.

Related

I love Roman Catholics.

But I'll keep that in mind because the current Pope may be laying the foundation for the blessing of gay unions and transgenderism.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

I love Roman Catholics.

But I'll keep that in mind because the current Pope may be laying the foundation for the blessing of gay unions and transgenderism.

---

I love you too

schmendeler said:

---

I find that these threads/discussions are always started (and had) by men convinced that women have doomed themselves, and never by women.

---

Women as a whole are not capable of acknowledging their moral failings. Their faults are funny to them. They want all the benefits without the responsibilities etc..

schmendeler said:

---

I find that these threads/discussions are always started (and had) by men convinced that women have doomed themselves, and never by women.

---

Feminism was the classic overcorrection. Men were not treating women well. But instead of a movement trying to get men to be better, the Seneca falls document outlined a movement encouraging women to suck as bad as men do and to shed the family structure that had served us for milllenia.

As in just about 100% of disputes, the blame is with both sides

Yep.

I think feminism only favors wealthy lustful men.

I have to think there is a significant contingent of women who decided to go the career route and realized going to an office every day isn't that glamorous.

I would contend that MOST, but obviously not all, women have a biological drive to want to have children. Further, it is my opinion that many have been conditioned to think that their priority in life should not be family, but should be education and money/career, and that family can come later, but sex is still great, so have a bunch of it and "explore yourself," "date around," "figure out the type of man you like," while working on your career, etc. "You can always do family later." And, "if a man wants you to do ____, and not priotiize yourself and your fun/career/education first, he's a misogynist."

That combination of conditioning, teaching, indoctrination, whatever you want to call it has honestly led to many women's biological clocks running out. Jennifer Anniston once talked about how child bearing isn't for everyone, and suggested she didn't want a child. Now it has come out that she struggled mightily with infertility in her later years. Can you imagine someone as influential as her telling young girls "it's ok to not want children." But now years later it turns out she wanted them, but couldn't have them.

In order to make themselves feel less bad about their choices, I think some women lie to younger women. Instead of saying "learn from my mistake, don't ignore starting a family early," they continue this circle of lies. That being said, they may not have the introspection to realize it, and they may be telling themselves it's ok because they don't want to admit their mistakes to themselves.

I'm on a couple dating apps right now, and I am honestly shocked at the number of never married women in their late 30's, and even their early 40's whose profiles say "want children." The odds of natural conception at that age are low, and the odds of genetic syndromes is quite high. And most men that want children are not risking going after a woman of that age.

Is is OK to not want children. So Jennifer Anniston was not wrong.

I have 6 daughters, mind you, they all want something different. All were/are nurturing persons. 1 is married and has a kiddo, 1 engaged, 2 are pursing careers not dating seriously (from what I hear), and the other 2 still young adults. 1 as I have written is a trans person dealing with gender dysphoria. We are walking through this time together and I have learned much. Enough to know that we (society) have created some extremes in our culture of what women want and how women should look that have contributed to a self-image crisis for some. This probably came from men, like a lot of things do. A topic for another thread.

One of my daughters said something to me that bears repeating. We were looking through some old pictures of my wife and I during our days at A&M. I had kept a letter from my wife that was just silly nonsense talk between two young people in love. I told her that is was kind of silly, but meant a lot to me (still does) and she said, "Dad - all the girls want what you and mom have- it's romantic." She is 25 years old and engaged to be married soon. So I don't think things have changed so much for those girls that want to marry - they want to live happily ever after.

PabloSerna said:

---

Is is OK to not want children. So Jennifer Anniston was not wrong.

---

I totally agree. However, my issue is with her saying that while hiding the fact that she was struggling with fertility issues and pretending that she didn't want children. It wasn't until years later that she opened up about her fertility issues.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

As long as single people stay celibate and keep away from porn, it's a great thing.

When men watch porn, they are giving into the Beast in the book of Revelation.

---

Right. So I try not to bring religion into these debates, because so many people just ignore you when you do.

However, there is mounting scientific evidence demonstrating the harms of pornography on both men and women.

There are men that have lost a desire to be with women because they have easy access to pornography. Now companies are creating AI girlfriends. You can customize a digital woman to look how you want them to, to have the personality you want, and essentially create a perfect girlfriend for you. And those companies are already making tons of money because men are buying that up.

Further, there are a TON of men with erectile dysfunction that are in their 20's and 30's. That's not supposed to happen. They are being so stimulated by pornography, that they are seeking out more and more extreme forms of porn. It's just like a drug addict, the first hit of a drug feels good, but your body gets used to it. Then you want more, and more, then you switch to harder drugs. I have seen men as young as 22 needing viagra. And I don't mean just wanting it, but actually needing it.

For women, pornography is made primarily to please men. It is often degrading to women. And it is teaching essentially bad things to men on how to treat women in the bedroom. Further, it is also mentally damaging to women. It used to be that most women that ended up in that industry had some sort of trauma/abuse as a child. Now with the ease of entry, it's not as much so. But still, while that woman may make a ton of money, her life is ruined. There are countless porn stars that have opened up about the abuse they faced after entering the industry and the lasting impact is has had on them. Plus, like it or not, men do not value a woman that has been promiscuous. Women call out the patriarchy for this, stating it's a double standard, but the reality is that it is their standard. Women do not care as much about a man's past as a man care's about a woman's past - more often than not.

So again, take religion out of the argument completely and there is still plenty of reason that all this is bad.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Per RCC... what needs to be factored in - is that not all women have a vocation to the married life. Some to the religious, some to the single life, and many to the married life.

It would seem that many think all women want to be married. Just not the case.

ETA: Same goes for men.

---

Agreed. There's a balance there somewhere.
Most of the OT Prophets and many of the Apostles appeared to have been single.

---

I think there's a quirk that should be asterisked. Single people should be devoted to God, not simply single as a lifestyle. I don't know why there's a split between religious and single for women but I don't think it belongs there. Same for men - ministry need not be it but devoted to the church nonetheless.

God gave us commandments to make life better, not worse.

The only thing "good" that comes from porn, promiscuity, fornication, etc. is short (in my case very short) pleasure.

And the consequences, just as God warned us, can be devastating.

Just like our father, He gives us rules to live a more abundant life.

Quote:

---

-Feminism and the sexual revolution is actually doing more harm than good to women.

---

I don't really have a problem with people thinking this. I disagree, but that's ok. The question becomes what are you going to do now that you've decided feminism and the sexual revolution were bad things? Are you going to try and use the power of government to take away the rights of women "for their own good"? That's when we'll have problems.

Yes, protestantism destroyed the corrupted theocracy that was catholicism..... nm the fact of eastern orthodoxy and the fact that mainline 'protestant faiths as practiced by Mennonites, Amish and others have some of the most socially conservative and devoted participants to tradition and biblical values.

Christians have been convinced that the world should be pluralistic. It shouldn't as commissioned by our Savior to preach the gospel and make disciples of all people/nations. The idea (not that it is implied by anyone) that Christians should separate their faith from their public life is in direct opposition to scripture. The Amish and Mennonites have never accepted a public life outside of their religious life, which lukewarm Christians have to their own destruction.

Another video from another woman. Though this one specifically talks more about feminism in general and not just sexual revolution.

It's the same problem that's as old as mankind. Everyone wants freedom and agency. Sometimes it makes people happier, but sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes people use their freedom and agency to do good things, but sometimes they don't.

From a less philosophical and more social viewpoint, I think the decline of America has been largely hidden by the rise of feminism. It takes two incomes to earn the same standard of living that you could get 50 years ago. Meaning the value of each income is worth about half of what it was then. However, most households have two people working, so everything seems to be the same. The desire of women to enter the workforce and have careers has masked this consistent decline in earning power. Only now we're getting to the point that you need two incomes and no children to have that same sort of lifestyle, and that's a demographic nightmare. For better or worse, feminism and the career woman archetype has allowed us to kick the can down the road half a century.

I think of the social movements over the past several decades as a pendulum. And as pendulums do, they tend to swing past 'equilibrium' (whatever that is in this context).

But, I also think it is too easy to look at current social movements and criticize them without acknowledging what gave these social movements all of their momentum - which of course is the potential energy of the pendulum historically pushed past equilibrium in the opposite direction. Social movements like feminism and the so called sexual revolution are a reaction to some cultural condition which I think most of us on this board acknowledge as having its own drawbacks . . . . or at least can understand why some people would consider those cultural conditions negatively.

Despite the fact that I do acknowledge with many of the concerns brought up in this thread, I seriously doubt that a substantial percentage of women in the US (or the West) would like to turn women's cultural / legal / social clocks back 100 years or 50 years. Of course its a false dichotomy to say that are only options are 'today' and '1920'. But, I think that 'today' makes no sense without understanding the context of the culturally induced role of women from 1920 and what lead to dissatisfaction with that role over the past 100 years.

Quote:

---

We led women down this route by not standing up. Now many of us aren't allowed to stand up.

Women as a whole are not capable of acknowledging their moral failings.

---

With respect, I think this is the exactly the attitude that feminism is reactionary against. The first statement does not acknowledge what women want, rather describes them as creatures to be led. Whether you think its right or wrong, I think many modern women want to lead themselves, they want for men to listen, and if we are to stand up for anything, it is to stand up for their autonomy. And the question maybe for men is "Does the fact that some women will not use their autonomy in the way we want them to, justify removal of that autonomy." And I think the second sentence is just insulting . . . .

Things like the anti-body shaming movement are the same. Should we celebrate obesity? No. Should we shame all women who don't have super model figures? No. Is there a middle ground where we celebrate healthy bodies even though healthy looks different for different people? Probably.

One thing I will say about the current assembly of social movements is that I think there is a wider capacity for cultural / legal / social individualism. That is to say that political, social, fiscal, and legal status is open to more than just straight white men. And as a straight white man, I have a great deal of pause about complaining about my victimhood in light of any sort of historical context. I don't say that to discount current double standards or current inequities. . . . . But, I think that despite the pendulum having swung too far, natural resistances have caused it to loose energy. To make this point a different way - would you rather be a straight white man today or be black in 1900? Or a woman in 1900? or gay in 1900?

Again, I don't make the statements above to justify any inequity against anyone. What I hope is that these are simply the growing pains that happen in the course of transitioning toward a more tolerant culture.