I think what fascinated me the most was the discussion of our new-found sexual freedom as women. Finally, we have sexual freedom like men do. I know I can be terribly naive at times, but all I could think is that if the men have been sexually free all this time and the women haven't, then who, pray tell, are the men having sex with?
I know, I know. The men could have it and not be judged, whereas their women were no longer acceptable in society. Well, in that case, why "free" the women to act like the men? Why not instead hold the men to a higher standard, and judge them to be as equally shameful as we judged the women to be?
You know, I don't like the sexual repression that denied the deep hunger for love that lies within all of us. But neither do I like unrestrained sex. There has to be some discipline because sex is a very beautiful and very powerful thing. Fireworks are beautiful when they are used safely and correctly, but dangerous as all get out when used without respect for their power.
I don't know if EFG was trying to help us figure out how we should define this new morality that we find ourselves in. I have to admit that I think that the idea of trying to redefine morality to fit our newfound sexual freedom is ridiculous. It's not as though we as Americans used to have one morality and now we have a different one. That's really not up for debate any more than the laws of science are. We are created as we are created. Ignoring that will not make it go away.
Here's how I see it. The sexual repression of the previous generation was an anorexia of sorts. Like if they tried to deny the need it would go away. Of course, the constant denial can lead to a binge/purge cycle with sex as well. The sexual revolution decided that sex was good, and that any sex we wanted was good, so let's go with it all. Like a glutton spiraling towards disastrous obesity. Both are deadly to the body, and we are only fooling ourselves if we think that we can play games with sexuality and end up any better.
Good post. I laughed out loud at this line: "if the men have been sexually free all this time and the women haven't, then who, pray tell, are the men having sex with?"
ReplyDeleteI think the firework analogy is quite good, as is the binge/purge thought. Do you think we could possible be in a purge state now, as a society? Or moving towards one? Or is it still binge binge binge?
"Why not instead hold the men to a higher standard, and judge them to be as equally shameful as we judged the women to be?" I wonder if the answer to that is that the sexual revolution was actually driven by men more than women? They were certainly still the ones who had the statistical power in everything from money to education to political positions. It still seems slightly suspicious to me that more men than women support abortion. I obviously do not have stats for the sexual revolution issue, but it seems as if it would be a more obvious benefit to men to increase "sexual liberation."
ReplyDeletef the men have been sexually free all this time and the women haven't, then who, pray tell, are the men having sex with?"
ReplyDelete-Obviously we know the answer to this, but the truth still lies with the facts that if a man exercised and was the instigator these "sexual freedoms" it was okay because was a man. If a woman exercised or instigated these freedoms she was a whore and shunned from society. While I don't want this to sound like I'm supporting rampant sexual immorality, we can't allow for that kind of dualism. It's either accepted as good or bad for both or neither.
Even when taking it out of context of adultery or promiscuous behavior the duality is still there. Take those who value virginity before marriage. How many of us know people who would aghast to find out the bride wasn't a virgin, but more accepting if the groom wasn't, it's the same duality. The girl might be quickly labeled "loose" where as the guy is just thought of as "acting like a guy".