Sex revolution – the “liberation” continues?

I think the Sex revolution, after I watched this documentary (in favour of it), was based on fundamentally three big misconceptions:

  • By tasting more and more premarital sex, young people loved it and naturally wanted more. They didn’t even see the problems that it will cause, and the trouble is that for the first time, the old generation is not conservative, as it was usually,  but is just as radical and “it made me happy” as it was before it had to grow up (which didn’t take place). And with their social liberalism, they still have the control over it to be able to get the best of life. But children suffered a lot from divorce, and culture became much more sexual than even Freud thought would have been normal. In fact, Freud thought man to be an animal shaped mainly by his sexual imagination. “Free sex” became something now young people actually don’t like – couples respect this, and more and more girls seem to wait to become 18 years old at least, before having sex. How ironic that the old generation thought so much of liberation and of happiness, and had it, and brought so much unhappiness to ours.
  • Another problem is the lack of any sales-resistance to sex products. How often do I see an ad about a woman or a girl seeking company? And truly, people being surrounded by that, they thirst and they buy. What would it have been if a boy or a girl discovered sex when he/she becomes sexually mature? No, they just have to be surrounded by magazines, so that they’ll spend so much time wanting to be like these rappers with (half-)naked girls, or like in the porn movies, which is even worse. That’s the way industry makes money out of desire, especially that we are told that sex is something consumable, not a relationship. And the Servile State only helps Big Business get bigger and bigger.
  • Speaking of the State, it is also its fault – many politicians come, after all, from the Baby Boom generation, and so do most teachers. So it is hard to see who will volunteer, especially in very secular countries, like France, to propose a suppression of sex education. It is not neutral, and Peter Hitchens even wrote (not for the first time on this subject) of the hypocrisy of sexual revolutionaries – “As the age of sexual consent is 16, what are state employees doing fitting contraceptive implants in 13-year-old girls? Aren’t they colluding in a criminal act?” So, what is it going to be – sex after 13 or 16?

It is good to know that my generation is way less perverse than the previous – and I hope it gets back to common sense, being already very disguisted by some of the perversions of the previous ones.

Here is a good excerpt from an article by Frederica Mathewes-Green, a very open-minded Christian author and speaker. Read the whole article, it is very eloquently written.

It was this breezy attitude toward the sexual revolution that lay behind so much of the divorce in my generation. That’s why so many of our children grew up without dads, or lived through their parents’ divorce (and why so many of their children will as well): because my generation decided that you can change partners when the mood strikes, that you can make a commitment, break it, and make a new one, and that the whole meaning of sex is consumer pleasure.

We abandoned our children. Now they’re growing up, and we haven’t given them much guidance about how to do a better job. Many young people are afraid of marriage because they’re afraid of divorce, and at the same time they really long for a safe, secure, happy home, even though they have no idea how to make one.

(…)

Everything you hear in ads and entertainment is telling you that your goal is to wake up next to someone gorgeous tomorrow morning. That’s the rationale of consumer sex. But I think what humans really want is to wake up next to someone kind, fifty years from tomorrow morning.

So, basically, there is nothing wrong it is none of my business if you want to have sex before marriage as many times as you want if you think it’s okay, but don’t let consequences fall on others. First by becoming addict and wanting the state to adapt to your addiction, as if men were not free never to start. Second, by leaving your child the right to live with two parents who love him and leave him free to know what an addiction-free life is, and all that above your right to divorce if the marriage is a failure, nothing worse than mediocre, or if you’re simply not in love.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s