• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fruits of the Sexual Revolution

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,246
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
From Abortion, Contraception, &The Sexual Revolution by Kristin E. Putnam

. Not that happiness in marriage is a bad thing at all, but happiness is a moving target and is much too fickle to be a stable foundation on which to build a marriage. As a result, we see the divorce rate climbing from 10% in 1925 to now over 50%

As Ghandi mentioned, the use of artificial contraception by its very nature, makes people more reckless and promiscuous. When natural consequence is seemingly removed, temptation has little to overcome. Studies all over the world have shown a direct correlation between increased access to contraception and rise in abortion rates. A recent study from Spain, published in 2011 in the medical journal “Contraception” followed over 2000 women for a period of 10 years. At the beginning of the study 49.1% of the women were using contraception. By the end of the study this number climbed to nearly 80%. Nevertheless, the national abortion rate nearly doubled in this same time frame. Even the Guttmacher institute admits that 54% of all “unwanted pregnancies” were achieved when contraception was being used.

http://nfpaware.com/papers/Abortion, Contraception, and the Sexual Revolution.pdf

And I don't think I need to describe how terrible these increased rates of infidelity and divorce are for children of these unions. But please, continue to tell me how this is so much better for all of us and how we're so much better off now that we're "uninhibited" and no longer obsessed with sex (seems to me that we're more obsessed than ever before).
 
I tend to agree, but the genie is out of the bottle, and he's not going back in any time soon. For everything that has positive results, there are also the negatives. It's something that we just have to deal with, because so many humans have essentially no moral compass when it comes to their sexuality.
 
From Abortion, Contraception, &The Sexual Revolution by Kristin E. Putnam





http://nfpaware.com/papers/Abortion, Contraception, and the Sexual Revolution.pdf

And I don't think I need to describe how terrible these increased rates of infidelity and divorce are for children of these unions. But please, continue to tell me how this is so much better for all of us and how we're so much better off now that we're "uninhibited" and no longer obsessed with sex (seems to me that we're more obsessed than ever before).

except there is plenty of evidence that birth control reduces abortion rates.

Access to Free Birth Control Reduces Abortion Rates | Research News | Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ab...-birth-control-planned-parenthood-s-42603.htm

Also a review of research concludes this:

CONCLUSION
Empirical study of the aggregate relationships between contraceptive use and induced abortion has to be limited to the few countries where reasonably reliable information exists on both. Despite this severe limitation, our review of the evidence provides ample illustration of the interaction between these factors. When fertility levels in a population are changing, the relationship between contraceptive use and abortion may take a variety of forms, frequently involving a simultaneous increase in both. When other factors—such as fertility—are held constant, however, a rise in contraceptive use or effectiveness invariably leads to a decline in induced abortion—and vice versa.

Relationships Between Contraception and Abortion: A Review of the Evidence
 
What increased rate of infidelity? Increased rate of people admitting to infidelity, maybe. But to pretend that people in past generations weren't screwing everything that moved is very naive.

Likewise, more divorce can easily be interpreted as more people escaping from bad marriages. Previous generations, given the option, may well have benefited from doing so. Imagine countless generations trapped in horrible marriages that they couldn't break free from. And, of course, women forced to bear children they didn't want to bear.

We have gained a great deal from the sexual revolution and lost nothing but oppression of women.
 
continue to tell me how this is so much better for all of us and how we're so much better off now that we're "uninhibited" and no longer obsessed with sex (seems to me that we're more obsessed than ever before).

I think the younger generation is terrified to have sex. I think your observation might be off by about 20 or 30 years. The AIDS scare of the 80's really changed the attitude about sexual promiscuity for an entire generation.
 
I can tell you that is not true.

Perhaps. I have been married 12 years and haven't had to deal with this part of life. I think my generation was pretty cautious about such things. That's not what I heard about my parent's generation.
 
Perhaps. I have been married 12 years and haven't had to deal with this part of life. I think my generation was pretty cautious about such things. That's not what I heard about my parent's generation.

I think my generation is definitely not very cautious about it. The fear of things like AIDS in the 1980s no longer exist, there is sex education now.
 
I think my generation is definitely not very cautious about it. The fear of things like AIDS in the 1980s no longer exist, there is sex education now.

I'm 35. Maybe we are from a different age group.
 
And I don't think I need to describe how terrible these increased rates of infidelity and divorce are for children of these unions. But please, continue to tell me how this is so much better for all of us and how we're so much better off now that we're "uninhibited" and no longer obsessed with sex (seems to me that we're more obsessed than ever before).
I think the divorce rate stated by your source is wrong. It's nowhere near 50%.
 
Perhaps. I have been married 12 years and haven't had to deal with this part of life. I think my generation was pretty cautious about such things. That's not what I heard about my parent's generation.

I think every generation thinks the previous generation was less cautious.
 
I think my generation is definitely not very cautious about it. The fear of things like AIDS in the 1980s no longer exist, there is sex education now.

Oh no, it exists. But we use condoms.
 
We have gained a great deal from the sexual revolution and lost nothing but oppression of women.

IMO that is precisely what the backward conservative guys miss -- being able to LEGALLY oppress women and prevent us from having ANY opportunities and rights whatsoever. That's what they USED to have, at the beginning of the 19th century, when American women were barred from colleges, from access to the well-paying trades and professions, and of course from the VOTE. For the extremist guys who can't stand the fact that we women DO have rights now, those were "the good old days."

Of course these guys would deny that women were being oppressed at all. Big surprise, right? :roll:
 
Oh for cripes sakes....

Yes - it's always wrong to give people (especially women) freedom, choice, and options for how to lead their life. :roll:

It's much better to force people into specific roles and lifestyles based on antiquated, misogynist, and mythological christian dogma.

"Talibornagain" is a perfect label for phattonez.

I have little doubt that if phattonez had been born and raised in Pakistan, he'd be a supporter of Sharia law.
 
Oh for cripes sakes....

Yes - it's always wrong to give people (especially women) freedom, choice, and options for how to lead their life. :roll:

It's much better to force people into specific roles and lifestyles based on antiquated, misogynist, and mythological christian dogma.

"Talibornagain" is a perfect label for phattonez.

I have little doubt that if phattonez had been born and raised in Pakistan, he'd be a supporter of Sharia law.

I have NO doubts on that point. If he'd been born in the 19th century, when the Women's Rights Movement was in full force, he would have been constantly scolding women for not staying "in their proper sphere." Which, of course, for women was the home and NOTHING else. :roll:
 
And I don't think I need to describe how terrible these increased rates of infidelity and divorce are for children of these unions. But please, continue to tell me how this is so much better for all of us and how we're so much better off now that we're "uninhibited" and no longer obsessed with sex (seems to me that we're more obsessed than ever before).

I think our society IS completely obsessed with sex, but also obsessed with pretending we don't like sex either. In my own opinion, I don't think the rise in infidelity, abortion, or divorce is the result of contraception being available. It seems, at least to me, to be due to the fact that American society is obsessed with pretending that sex doesn't exist. Socially speaking, you aren't allowed to talk about sex in public. You aren't allowed to enjoy sex with multiple partners (assuming you are unmarried) without being labeled a "slut."

We have even come to associate innocent nudity with sex. Have teenagers take a shower in school after working out in gym class? Nope, can't do that. That's sexual! Find out that a parent allowed their child to see them naked at all? Oh, he (it's never she) is a child molester! A married couple goes to a clothing-optional beach? Oh, they MUST be perverts! This person likes BDSM? Well, he/she must be a freak! Hell, even cases of breast feeding gets people all out of whack.

We can show a woman topless in movies, and occasionally fully nude. But a man? No, that will get you an NC-17 rating faster than you can blink. And don't even THINK about showing nudity on television! It's more than a decade since the country got a half-second glimpse of Janet Jackson's covered nipple, and some people still talk about it like it's the apocalypse.

Our society is obsessed with sex, and HIDING sex and nudity, so much that when we ARE allowed to have it (i.e. with a willing partner in a bedroom), we tend to go a little wild. Think of it like the child who is only allowed candy on Halloween. Do you think he or she is going to be responsible and only eat a small bit of it? Hell no. They will eat their entire haul and then throw up on the floor. When you repress people, of course they are going to go hog-wild when that repression is temporarily removed.

You want to reduce infidelity, abortions, divorce, and STD's caused by indiscriminate sex? Then make sex and nudity something that Americans don't think of as taboo and dirty. Don't hide sex behind curtains and force people to stay in the dark when the like it. Don't assume that nudity and sex are the same thing. And don't punish people for wanting to explore their sexuality. Instead, make it socially acceptable to do that, and more married couples likely would do it together rather than one partner finding a fling because "my spouse isn't in to this."
 
Last edited:
I tend to agree, but the genie is out of the bottle, and he's not going back in any time soon. For everything that has positive results, there are also the negatives. It's something that we just have to deal with, because so many humans have essentially no moral compass when it comes to their sexuality.

I think the lack of a “moral compass” regarding sexuality is direct a result of an incorrect perception that modern technology now protects us from the adverse consequences of sexual irresponsibility. Much of modern society's view of sexual behavior would be very much like believing that the fact that cars are now equipped with seat belts and air bags means that there is no longer any need to exercise any care or responsibility in how you drive them; that you can drive as carelessly and recklessly as you want, and if you crash, the seat belts and air bags will protect you.
 
Last edited:
I think the lack of a “moral compass” regarding sexuality is direct a result of an incorrect perception that modern technology now protects us from the adverse consequences of sexual irresponsibility. Much of modern society's view of sexual behavior would be very much like believing that the fact that cars are now equipped with seat belts and air bags means that there is no longer any need to exercise any care or responsibility in how you drive them; that you can drive as carelessly and recklessly as you want, and if you crash, the seat belts and air bags will protect you.

Which probably has a great deal to do with "our" puritanical way of teaching sex education and/or just doing the ostrich-head-in-sand thing regarding the "moral compass" point of view and "abstinence only".
 
I'm 35. Maybe we are from a different age group.

I'm 33 and I would say that my generation is definitely not afraid of sex. We are more cautious about sex without protection, not afraid of having sex altogether. And even that depends on the person. I'm willing to bet that my husband and I each have more sexual partners in our past than each of our parents put together.
 
I think the lack of a “moral compass” regarding sexuality is direct a result of an incorrect perception that modern technology now protects us from the adverse consequences of sexual irresponsibility. Much of modern society's view of sexual behavior would be very much like believing that the fact that cars are now equipped with seat belts and air bags means that there is no longer any need to exercise any care or responsibility in how you drive them; that you can drive as carelessly and recklessly as you want, and if you crash, the seat belts and air bags will protect you.

Your problem is that you assume everyone's moral compass faces the same direction as your and they simply aren't following it. That isn't how morality works. It is subjective. Everyone's moral compass faces different directions based on their morals.

Life includes taking chances. I'm not saying that people need to be reckless, but that also doesn't mean that they should be afraid to live life because of what might happen to them should their protections fail.
 
Your problem is that you assume everyone's moral compass faces the same direction as your and they simply aren't following it. That isn't how morality works. It is subjective. Everyone's moral compass faces different directions based on their morals.

Life includes taking chances. I'm not saying that people need to be reckless, but that also doesn't mean that they should be afraid to live life because of what might happen to them should their protections fail.

And as result of these kinds of attitudes, we have STDs, date rapes, and unwed single mothers popping out of the wood works.

I'm sorry, but you're not going to make objectively foolish and unnecessarily risky behaviors seem any more "noble" by waxing poetic about how people have the "freedom" to engage in them. At the end of the day, being "free" to make an idiot out of one's self is just that; being an idiot.

Sure, some people can get away with that kind of thing on occasion, just like drunk drivers occasionally manage to walk away from car wrecks (that they themselves caused) without a scratch. However, that is not by any means the most common outcome of such pursuits, nor should people in any sense be given the idea that it will be.

Promiscuity and sexual irresponsibility lead to bad outcomes far more often than the good, or even neutral, variety. They always will.
 
Last edited:
And as result of these kinds of attitudes, we have STDs, date rapes, and unwed single mothers popping out of the wood works.

I'm sorry, but you're not going to make objectively foolish and unnecessarily risky behaviors seem any more "noble" by waxing poetic about how people have the "freedom" to engage in them. At the end of the day, being "free" to make an idiot out of one's self is just that; being an idiot.

Sure, some people can get away with that kind of thing on occasion, just like drunk drivers occasionally manage to walk away from car wrecks (that they themselves caused) without a scratch. However, that is not by any means the most common outcome of such pursuits, nor should people in any sense be given the idea that it will be.

Promiscuity and sexual irresponsibility lead to bad outcomes far more often than the good, or even neutral, variety. They always will.

STDs, date rapes and unwed mothers have existed since we have existed. The only difference is how we handle those things and knowing about them more now.

Simply having sex with someone is not being an idiot. There are plenty of people who do not do one night stands, get to know who they have sex with, even only have sex with those they are in relationships with and take precautions to prevent STDs and pregnancies. That is being responsible. Does that sometimes still lead to issues? Sure. It happens.

Actually, the most common outcome is responsible sexual behavior or at least responsible enough to not get pregnant or STDs since promiscuity, fornication far exceed the rate of STDs and pregnancy, even date rapes.

I'm pretty sure though that some here believe that any sex outside of marriage or at least a longterm relationship is "sexual irresponsibility", protected or not. And that is what I am talking about. That kind of sex far exceeds those rate of negative consequences.

So my question is, what do you consider "irresponsible sex"?
 
STDs, date rapes and unwed mothers have existed since we have existed. The only difference is how we handle those things and knowing about them more now.

They are at historic highs, and have been since the 1960s. As other posters pointed out, the AIDs scare did put a temporary damper on things for a decade or so there in the mid to late 1990s.

However, trends have been ramping back up ever since. What's worse, the diseases people are catching these days tend to be a lot more severe than they were in the past as well.

Genital Herpes (which has now mutated in such a way as to be spread by both HSV-1 and HSV-2, incidentally) is one of the fastest growing infections out there.

Simply having sex with someone is not being an idiot. There are plenty of people who do not do one night stands, get to know who they have sex with, even only have sex with those they are in relationships with and take precautions to prevent STDs and pregnancies with. That is being responsible. Does that sometimes still lead to issues? Sure. It happens.

Sure, but I don't think that's what Bob was referring to.

Sex within marriage would be ideal, IMO. However, sex within any committed relationship is ultimately preferable to promiscuity in terms of both general outcomes and the risks involved.

Actually, the most common outcome is responsible sexual behavior or at least responsible enough to not get pregnant or STDs since promiscuity, fornication far exceed the rate of STDs and pregnancy, even date rapes.

At latest estimates, a sexually active person's chances of contracting an STD by the age of 25 are roughly 50 / 50.

So my question is, what do you consider "irresponsible sex"?

There are degrees of irresponsibility. Sex within a serious marriage is the least irresponsible sexual act a person can commit, whereas promiscuous sex with casual partners, especially if under the influence of any kind of mind altering substance, is the most irresponsible.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom