Thanks everyone for bearing with me while I was away.
Ian Paul over at Psephizo recently wrote a review of a book titled, "The Case against the Sexual Revolution" by Louise Perry which I found interesting, but I am certain that the general population of Western civilization will not.
Peter Wyatt writes: According to Philip Larkin, ‘sexual intercourse began in nineteen sixty-three’. Until today, this sexual revolution, brought about by more effective forms of contraception, has been hailed as an emancipation of human beings. No longer were we subject to the restraints of traditional morality as policed by religious faith, and family mores. Instead, they could act according to our desires, to find pleasure and happiness in any way they saw fit. Why should society have any opinion on what happened between the sheets, as Stephen Fry once said?
About that time they dropped the word "adultery" and started calling it an "affair".
In her provocative new book, The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, Louise Perry argues that the picture is far from rosy. Instead of liberation, society has created new forms of oppression: rough sex, hook-up culture, and pornography to name a few. She argues that in all of these women have been the losers. In her view, the much-touted concept of “consent” as the answer to everything has failed and we have arrived at a situation that benefits a minority of men, at the expense of women...
Consent hmmm... What ever happened to the good old days when the boss could chase the intern around the desk in the Oval Office and not get in trouble?
Skip to,
...Chapter 8 outlines Perry’s proposal for a corrective to the sexual revolution: marriage. Some feminists argue that marriage is the single biggest vehicle for the oppression of women, but Perry argues that marriage solves several extremely difficult problems in society, given that human beings are constrained by their biology. Firstly, it solves a problem she calls dependency. As she says, if you value freedom above all else, then you must reject motherhood, because motherhood creates dependency in the form of a child. Instead, marriage creates a solution and a rationale for dependency, where a father can provide support, resources, protection to the mother and child. Secondly, it provides encouragement for men to adopt the ‘dad’ mode of sexual behaviour as opposed to the ‘cad’ mode. As Perry discusses all the way through the book, the ‘cad’ mode of male sexuality is extremely detrimental to women and the source of many of the ills mentioned in previous chapters. According to anthropologists, monogamous marriage is successful in pushing men away from cad mode, and in providing a stable environment for child-rearing. Perry argues that marriage is not perfect but that there is no better system that has been tried in history.
The past sixty years proves her right on the value of marriage to society.
This should be what they are teaching in school instead of Critical Race Theory.
Posts
She's right in saying that this has not been good for women in general. In addition to the problems you cite, there is the damage to women who declined to have sex without a marriage commitment. Many of those ended up permanently single because men could always get what they wanted somewhere else. Physical sex was all-important and men didn't think of marriage and fidelity.
ReplyDelete