Narratives Re: Regrets on Promiscuity

[smac97]

I have recently come across two articles, both written by women, expressing regrets about buying into the generalized narrative on the Sexual Revolution.  The interesting thing is that both authors are expressing this regret from an emphatically non-religious point of view.  

The first is an article by Louise Perry, "I'm 30. The Sexual Revolution Shackled My Generation."  Here is the link (warning: there is a picture at the top of the article showing a woman in a bikini standing on her hands with her legs spread apart - fairly ironic in that it sexualizes a young woman as part of an article where sexualization is decried).

Quote

I used to believe the liberal narrative on the sexual revolution. As a younger woman, I held the same opinions as most other millennial urban graduates in the West. I conformed to the beliefs of my class. 

Of course freedom is the goal, I thought. What women need is the freedom to behave as men have always behaved, enjoying all the pleasures of casual sex, porn, BDSM, and indeed any other sexual delight that the human mind can dream up. As long as everyone is consenting, what’s the problem? 

I no longer believe any of this. 

I’m not a religious conservative. I’m a feminist, and I’ve spent my entire professional life working on the issue of male violence against women—first in a rape crisis center, and later as a journalist and a media relations director for a legal campaign against sexual violence.

"What women need is the freedom to behave as men have always behaved, enjoying all the pleasures of casual sex, porn, BDSM, and indeed any other sexual delight that the human mind can dream up."

That sure sounds a lot like Korihor's reasoning in Alma 30:

Quote

17 And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime.

18 And thus he did preach unto them, leading away the hearts of many, causing them to lift up their heads in their wickedness, yea, leading away many women, and also men, to commit whoredoms—telling them that when a man was dead, that was the end thereof.

Anyway, back to the article:

Quote

It’s precisely because I’m a feminist that I’ve changed my mind on sexual liberalism. It’s an ideology premised on the false belief that the physical and psychological differences between men and women are trivial, and that any restrictions placed on sexual behavior must therefore have been motivated by malice, stupidity or ignorance. 

The problem is the differences aren’t trivial. Sexual asymmetry is profoundly important: One half of the population is smaller and weaker than the other half, making it much more vulnerable to violence. This half of the population also carries all of the risks associated with pregnancy. It is also much less interested in enjoying all of the delights now on offer in the post-sexual revolution era. 

Fair points, these.  Although I think she would do better by considering constraints on sexual behavior as benefitting both women and men.  We're all in this together.

Quote

The research is clear. Men are (on average) far more interested than women are in casual sex, buying sex, watching porn, and experimenting with unusual fetishes. It’s not that women never enjoy such things. But, on average, they enjoy them much less than men do. 

Remove the progressive goggles, and the history of the last 60 years looks different. The sexual revolution isn’t only a story of women freed from the burdens of chastity and motherhood. It is also a story about the triumph of the playboy. 

Men, if left without sexual constraint, may descend into inappropriate and harmful behaviors.  Same with women.  The tragedy arose when many women, under the rubric of the Sexual Revolution, abandoned a source of power they had previously wielded for the sel-protection and benefit: access to the sexual act.  Perry is quite right about "sexual asymmetry," but she doesn't finish the thought.  Broadly speaking, the advantage on the male half the population (being bigger and stronger) was offset by the advantage on the female side (controlling access to sex) (I am speaking, again, broadly).

The Sexual Revolution essentially had many of its female advocates (most of which, I think, styled themselves as "feminists") saying: "Men are pigs because they are predisposed toward casual sex, buying sex, etc.  Let us women now join them in their wanton depravities.  Let's give 'em what they want.  Sex without meaning or significance."

Quote

The new sexual culture isn’t so much about the liberation of women, as so many feminists would have us believe, but the adaptation of women to the expectations of a familiar character: Don Juan, Casanova, or, more recently, Hugh Hefner.

This may all be changing. My friend the writer Katherine Dee has been predicting a shift for some time. “I believe the pendulum with sexuality is going to swing, big time,” she wrote last year on her Substack. “We’re diving headlong into something that’s been simmering in the background since 2013–2014 . . . The pot is about to boil over.”

Katherine is one of those people who has a talent for noticing changes in the cultural winds, and she observes more and more signs of a coming reaction against the excesses of the sexual liberation narrative—particularly from Gen Z women who have experienced the worst of it. 

On TikTok, teenage girls are swapping their war stories and decrying a “sex positive” culture that sets them up to fail. On Reddit, a group called Female Dating Strategy is offering tips on how to survive in a dating culture that is fundamentally hostile toward women. Some women are opting out of sexual relationships altogether and adopting labels like asexual or “femcel” (female celibate). There has even been a rise in millennial nuns.

Maybe the better approach would be . . . to re-attached sex to marriage.  After all, married people have both more and better sex than their single counterparts, many of the beneits of which pertain directly to connecting the act to the marital institution.

It's almost as if the Lord knew what He was doing when He gave us the Law of Chastity!

Quote

I think Katherine is right on this. I think young women have been utterly failed by liberal feminism and have the most to gain from a swing back against its excesses. 

This is the advice I would offer my own daughter:

• Distrust any person or ideology that pressures you to ignore your moral intuition.
• Chivalry is actually a good thing. We all have to control our sexual desires, and men particularly so, given their greater physical strength and average higher sex drives.
• Sometimes (though not always) you can readily spot sexually aggressive men. There are a handful of personality traits that are common to them: impulsivity, promiscuity, hyper-masculinity and disagreeableness. These traits in combination should put you on your guard.
• ...
• Consent workshops are mostly useless. The best way of reducing the incidence of rape is by reducing the opportunities for would-be rapists to offend. This can be done either by keeping convicted rapists in prison or by limiting their access to potential victims.
• The category of people most likely to become victims of these men are young women between the ages of 13 and 25. All girls and women, but particularly those in this age category, should avoid being alone with men they don’t know or men who give them the creeps. Gut instinct is not to be ignored: It’s usually triggered by a red flag that’s well worth noticing.
• Get drunk or high in private and with female friends, rather than in public or in mixed company.
• Don’t use dating apps. They offer a large pool of options, but at a severe cost. It is far better to meet a partner through mutual friends, since they can vet histories and punish bad behavior. Dating apps can’t.
• Holding off on having sex with a new boyfriend for at least a few months is a good way of discovering whether or not he’s serious about you or just looking for a hook-up.
• Only have sex with a man if you think he would make a good father to your children—not because you necessarily intend to have children with him, but because this is a good rule of thumb in deciding whether he’s worthy of your trust.
• Monogamous marriage is by far the most stable and reliable foundation on which to build a family.

Much of this comes across as a diluted and secularized version of the Restored Gospel.  The Law o Chastity.  The Word of Wisdom.  The For the Strength of Youth pamphlet.

The Church's guidance, though more stringent, is still better. 

The next part of of the article is . . . kinda brutal:

Quote

If we are to challenge the social costs of the sexual revolution effectively, then we can’t redesign society on the back of an envelope. We have to look at social structures that have already proven to be successful and compare them against one another, rather than against some imagined alternative that has never existed and is never likely to exist. The technology shock of the Pill led many liberals to the hubristic assumption that our society could be uniquely free from the oppression of sexual norms and function just fine.

The last 60 years have proved that assumption to be wrong. We need to re-erect the social guard rails that have been torn down. To do that, we have to start by stating the obvious: Sex must be taken seriously. Men and women are different. Some desires are bad. Consent is not enough. Violence is not love. Loveless sex is not empowering. People are not products. Marriage is good. 

And, above all, listen to your mother. In 2021, a TikTok video by a young American woman named Abby went viral. In the video, Abby tells the camera:

“I, like many other college students, am someone who is entangled in hook-up culture, and often hook-up culture makes it difficult for me to determine whether or not what I’m doing is good for me and kind to myself. Very often, as women, we are led astray from what we actually deserve. So here’s what I’ve been doing lately . . . ”

Then she pulls up on screen a series of childhood photos of herself and explains that the men she’s hooked up with in the past have often made her feel as though she’s undeserving, not only of love but also of basic respect. So she’s trying to remind herself of her worth as a person by playing the role of mother to her inner child. “Am I OK with that for her?” she asks tearfully, gesturing at her younger self in the photo. “Would I let her be a late-night, drunk second option? Would I let this happen to her?” She shakes her head, weeping. “From a third-person, caretaker point of view, I would never let any of this stuff happen to her.”

Abby is trying to mother herself, though she isn’t quite sure how to do it. And the thousands of young women in her replies are trying to do the same (“I’m sobbing”; “i rlly needed this, thank you”; “this just changed my life”). They’ve been denied the guidance of mothers, not because their actual mothers are unwilling to offer it, but because of a matricidal impulse in liberal feminism that cuts young women off from the “problematic” older generation. This means not only that they are cut off from the voices of experience, but—more importantly—they are also cut off from the person who loves them most in the world. Feminism needs to rediscover the mother, in every sense.

Yep.  Mothers.  And fathers.  And marriage.  And family.  And fidelity.

Quote

Until we do, each individual woman will have to learn on her own the lie of the promise of sexual liberation—the lie that tells us, as Andrea Dworkin phrased it, that “****ing per se is freedom per se.”

It was a lie all along. It’s time, at last, to say so.

Well put.

The second article is by Bridget Phetasy, entitled "I Regret Being A S___" (I'm censoring the word, as I find it offensive even in its self-deprecating or nominal use).  It was actually written in response to Perry's book (on which the above article is based).  

Quote

Upon opening Louise Perry’s new book, The Case Against the Sexual Revolution: A New Guide to Sex in the 21st Century, I’m moved to tears by the dedication:

“For the women who learned it the hard way”

Unlike many other people who have read and reviewed Perry’s work, reading her book wouldn’t be some academic exercise in contemplating how liberal feminism has let women down. It wouldn’t be evaluating what those poor s___s over there have endured in the wake of the sexual revolution. Reading her book was personal.

I’m one of those s___s.

I’m a case study for her thesis. A cautionary tale. I knew this book was going to be difficult. And it made me realize it’s time to finish this essay –– one I’ve been trying to write for four years.

It’s a tough needle to thread. I’m grateful for the ability to control my reproductive cycle and make my own money. But that freedom has come at a price. The dark side of the sexual revolution is that even though it liberated women—unyoking sex from consequences has primarily benefited men.

I'm not sure the unyoking has "benefited men," either.  I think both sexes have been materially injured by succumbing to the Korihor-like philosphies inherent in the Sexual Revolution, albeit in some different ways.

But otherwise, yes, "unyoking sex from consequences" (and, more importantly, from marriage) has been a colossoal error.

Quote

I was first inspired to write this piece when a 19-year-old woman I used to wait tables with asked me: “Bridget, have you ever regretted having sex with a man?”

I laughed. “Yeah. All of them.”

That’s not entirely true. There was my first love in high school. And my first husband. But if I’m honest with myself, of the dozens of men I’ve been with (at least the ones I remember), I can only think of a handful I don’t regret. The rest I would put in the category of “casual,” which I would define as sex that is either meaningless or mediocre (or both). If I get really honest with myself, I’d say most of these usually drunken encounters left me feeling empty and demoralized. And worthless.

I wouldn’t have said that at the time, though. At the time, I would have told you I was “liberated” even while I tried to drink away the sick feeling of rejection when my most recent hook-up didn’t call me back. At the time, I would have said one-night stands made me feel “emboldened.” But in reality, I was using sex like a drug...

Meaningless sex and promiscuity, in the "Hook-up Culture" and outside of marriage, will have this effect.  Conversely, attaching significance to (and substantial constraints on) sex by fusing it to marriage will substantially increase the likelihood of happiness with this aspect of the human experience.

The next part is interesting:

Quote

I know regretting most of my sexual encounters is not something a sex-positive feminist who used to write a column for Playboy is supposed to admit. And for years, I didn’t. Let me be clear, being a “slut” and sleeping with a lot of men is not the only behavior I regret. Even more damaging was what I told myself in order to justify the fact that I was disposable to these men: I told myself I didn’t care.

I didn’t care when a man ghosted me. I didn’t care when he left in the middle of the night or hinted that he wanted me to leave. The walks of shame. The blackouts. The anxiety.

The lie I told myself for decades was: I’m not in pain—I’m empowered.

Looking back, it isn’t a surprise that I lied to myself. Because from a young age, sex was something I was lied to about.

Long before I ever had sex, I felt ashamed of my natural sexual urges and awkward in my blossoming female body. Growing up Catholic, all I remember about sex was feeling bad about it before I even knew what “it” was. I only knew that sex before marriage was wrong. Even the thought of a sexual act or masturbation filled me with debilitating guilt. The first time I kissed a boy, I was convinced I’d be punished. Struck down by an angry, misogynistic God.

As I got older, I was told to guard my virginity. Well-meaning mothers and aunts were clear that I needed to withhold sex in order to get a man to love and respect me. Sex was a commodity, a priceless gem I had to hang on to that increased in value the longer I held it. It made me feel like property. And although I don’t think that was the intention of the wise women who had learned their own lessons the hard way, for me, sex became inextricably linked to my self-worth.

Three problems here:

First, she seems to continue conflating (A) meaningless, promiscuous, "hook-up culture"-based, outside-of-marriage sex with the (B) the beautiful sort of sex arising between a husband and wife truly committed and devoted to each other.

Second, past (and, perhaps, ongoing) mischaracterizations of undifferentiated sex (again, conflating (A) and (B)) by "{w}ell-meaning mothers and aunts" seem to continue to skew her perspective.

Three, the author errs in her seeming disparagement of "sex" as being "inextricably linked" to "self-worth."  I think it is, or it ought to be.  We ought to hold sex in high regard, with much esteem.  We need to treat it with significance and import, even sanctity.  I think the best way to do that is by re-connecting it to marriage.

Quote

The shame and guilt I grew up with regarding sex felt oppressive. I resented the double standard that men could be promiscuous and it would raise their status and a woman would be slut-shamed for similar behavior. My burgeoning sexuality would unfold as a reaction to these repressive religious orthodoxies, old school notions of sexual status, and trauma.

Both men and women are debased when we treat sex like just another appetite, just an itch to scratch.  That some men may pat each other on the back for their promiscuous exploits is just the form of self-delusion they deal with.  Both sexes are diminished, in varying ways, when we lessen the value and significance of sexual behavior.

The next part is pretty tought:

Quote

I lost my virginity at 17 to my boss at a restaurant where I worked. And a year later, I experienced my first sexual trauma. I felt damaged and dirty and I blamed myself. Everyone responds differently to these situations—I dealt with the overwhelming shame by becoming hyper-sexual and promiscuous.

The Culture was right there to pick me up and dust me off. I doubled down on being a proud s___ and internalized the biggest and most damaging lie: that loveless sex is empowering. I basked in the girl-power glow of that delusion for decades, weaponizing my sexuality while convincing myself I was full of the divine feminine.

I was full of s^&%.

I told myself that because I could seduce a man, I was powerful. But as Perry says in her book, “...women can all too easily fail to recognize that being desired is not the same thing as being held in high esteem.” Deep down inside, I knew that to be the case. But as a defense mechanism, I crafted a man-eater persona. My mantras were rigid.

• You can either have a career or a relationship—but you can’t have both.

• Intimacy is creepy.

• Motherhood and children are a trap.

• Sex is only about power.

Another set of lies built on lies built on trauma. Sex isn’t just about power—it’s also about intimacy and vulnerability and trust. Things I wanted nothing to do with. Because implicit in modern dating is a complete lack of expectations –– especially those of chivalry.

Yeesh.  

Quote

I’m not speaking for all women. I know many women with a solid sense of self who happily have loveless sex. This piece won’t make them defensive.

At some point, it just might.  

Quote

But a lot of women will read this and bristle, just like I did, when I used to read something that pushed back on the lie I’d built my entire identity around.

Or maybe you’re a trans or nonbinary person reading this, thinking “What quaint ideas about gender and sex this old trad con has.” And to that I’ll say, it makes sense to me that the generation of young women who have experienced and borne witness to some of the worst side-effects of unyoking sex from consequence and love that Perry meticulously outlines in her book, “rough sex, hook-up culture, and ubiquitous porn”—would take a look around and decide:

I’d rather be a man. Or more accurately, I’d rather not be a woman.

But maybe it’s the inevitable conclusion to the sexual revolution. Today’s youth are being fed an even more dangerous lie than the one that I was fed about loveless sex. I was told sex doesn’t matter. They’re being told biology doesn’t matter.

This is a tragedy.

It sure is. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

What a refreshing take!  I hope this is a revolution(?), or perhaps better stated as a retrogress to historical perspectives of chastity will hold. 

I do see some areas where we can make healthy improvements from our historical roots though.  If there was one area of disagreement that I had with your comments, it is that I agree with the authors points below:

Quote

Looking back, it isn’t a surprise that I lied to myself. Because from a young age, sex was something I was lied to about.

Long before I ever had sex, I felt ashamed of my natural sexual urges and awkward in my blossoming female body. Growing up Catholic, all I remember about sex was feeling bad about it before I even knew what “it” was. I only knew that sex before marriage was wrong. Even the thought of a sexual act or masturbation filled me with debilitating guilt. The first time I kissed a boy, I was convinced I’d be punished. Struck down by an angry, misogynistic God.

As I got older, I was told to guard my virginity. Well-meaning mothers and aunts were clear that I needed to withhold sex in order to get a man to love and respect me. Sex was a commodity, a priceless gem I had to hang on to that increased in value the longer I held it. It made me feel like property. And although I don’t think that was the intention of the wise women who had learned their own lessons the hard way, for me, sex became inextricably linked to my self-worth.

I think that is a very unhealthy way to think about sex.  We can do better in how we teach about it, even in our church, I think.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Three, the author errs in her seeming disparagement of "sex" as being "inextricably linked" to "self-worth."  I think it is, or it ought to be.  We ought to hold sex in high regard, with much esteem.  We need to treat it with significance and import, even sanctity.  I think the best way to do that is by re-connecting it to marriage.

I whole heartedly disagree that sex should be inextricably linked to "self-worth".   Self-worth should only be be inextricably linked to how God perceives of us - "The worth of souls is great in the sight of God".  That includes sinners.   The worst thing anyone can do when they fall is lose self-worth.   It is only a downward spiral after that. 

But overall, I agree with the sentiment and am happy to see some cultural changes in this regard. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Three, the author errs in her seeming disparagement of "sex" as being "inextricably linked" to "self-worth."  I think it is, or it ought to be.

The problem here is too often this gets translated to worth being connected to virginity and then you have the nail in the board analogies and rape and abuse victims believing no one will want damaged goods. Better to tie the timing of sex and who you have it with to the value of self control and relationships. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

controlling access to sex

I think when sex is linked to “control”, that debases it.  It shouldn’t be about women controlling/manipulating men by granting or refusing access to sex, forcing them to marry the women so as to provide stability and safety if men want sex, but rather both men and women wanting to improve the quality of their relationships by both treating sex as something special that should be reserved for committed relationships and seeing marriage as that commitment.  There is a need to be taught to value family first rather than sexual achievements so that they desire marriage as well as a way to best create that family. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I think when sex is linked to “control”, that debases it.  

The phrasing could use some work.  But the underlying sentiment, I think, remains.  Perhaps "consent" is the better way to put it.  

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It shouldn’t be about women controlling/manipulating men by granting or refusing access to sex, forcing them to marry the wome")n so as to provide stability and safety if men want sex, but rather both men and women wanting to improve the quality of their relationships by both treating sex as something special that should be reserved for committed relationships and seeing marriage as that commitment.  

I quite agree.  But in generalities, A) men tend to be more interested in sex more often than women, B) women need to consent to sex, C) the Sexual Revolution substantially increased the numbers of women who were willing to take a "no strings attached" / "casual sex" / "hook up culture"-style approach to sexual interactions with men, such that D) the value of sex materially diminished because its availability/supply went way up and its attendant costs went way down.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

There is a need to be taught to value family first rather than sexual achievements so that they desire marriage as well as a way to best create that family. 

Yes.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

What a refreshing take!  I hope this is a revolution(?), or perhaps better stated as a retrogress to historical perspectives of chastity will hold. 

I sure hope so.  MSGA!  "Make Sex Great Again!"

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I do see some areas where we can make healthy improvements from our historical roots though.  If there was one area of disagreement that I had with your comments, it is that I agree with the authors points below:

I think that is a very unhealthy way to think about sex.  We can do better in how we teach about it, even in our church, I think.  

I agree with you.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I whole heartedly disagree that sex should be inextricably linked to "self-worth".   Self-worth should only be be inextricably linked to how God perceives of us - "The worth of souls is great in the sight of God". 

I think our worth is made most apparent to us when we honor ourselves and obey God.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

That includes sinners.   The worst thing anyone can do when they fall is lose self-worth.   It is only a downward spiral after that. 

But overall, I agree with the sentiment and am happy to see some cultural changes in this regard. 

I agree. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

But the underlying sentiment, I think, remains. 

Depends on what the underlying sentiment is. It could be the fundamental issue if sex is viewed culturally as a contractual arrangement. (I understand the legal need of framing it that way given the need to define “consent”, I just don’t see it as emotionally healthy to approach relationships as what amounts to a business arrangement).

Edited August 22, 2022 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

There's a lot to this I take issue with, but to start:

Quote

The Sexual Revolution essentially had many of its female advocates (most of which, I think, styled themselves as "feminists") saying: "Men are pigs because they are predisposed toward casual sex, buying sex, etc.  Let us women now join them in their wanton depravities.  Let's give 'em what they want.  Sex without meaning or significance."

The gist of what I'm getting from your cited pieces is that "Men are pigs, so let's not give them what they want." Before the sexual revolution, men were seen as the ones who wanted sex, and women were the "gatekeepers" responsible for keeping themselves chaste against the onslaught of male lust. Thus, it was the girls who got the "licked cupcake" lessons, not the boys. Boys got lessons about controlling their thoughts and not exercising the little factory. The problem I see with what you are quoting is that women are still seen as the gatekeepers, the ones whose job it is to say "no" to men.

I admit I don't have a lot of experience as a participant in the sexual revolution, having been a virgin when I got married, but I don't know anyone, "sexual liberal" or otherwise, who thinks that "what women need is the freedom to behave as men have always behaved, enjoying all the pleasures of casual sex, porn, BDSM, and indeed any other sexual delight that the human mind can dream up." Instead, the sexual revolution is supposed to be about no longer seeing women as the recipients of male lust but as equals in the ability to say yes or no. If a man wants casual sex and the woman doesn't, does "sexual liberation" mean she has to consent? Quite the opposite. If a man enjoys pornography, does a woman have to do likewise? Again, no. If a man wants to engage in BDSM or any other kink, does a woman have to go along with it? Again, no.

I must say I'm a little befuddled at the misguided idea that the way for rape victims to regain "power" in their lives is to become sexually promiscuous. Again, who is saying this? No one I know.

In short, if "sexual liberation" means that men and women are equals in making decisions about their sex lives, I'm all for it. If it's about women caving in to men's desires, leave me out of it. Of course, I don't think that is what it is.

Edited August 22, 2022 by jkwilliams

[pogi]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I sure hope so.  MSGA!  "Make Sex Great Again!"

Ha ha, I like it!

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think our worth is made most apparent to us when we honor ourselves and obey God.

Agreed.  I hope that we can all make it our Christ-centered mission to teach/inspire those who may have personally lost focus/vision of their individual worth, that their worth is not lost to God through sin.

  

[Amulek]

37 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't know anyone, "sexual liberal" or otherwise, who thinks that "what women need is the freedom to behave as men have always behaved, enjoying all the pleasures of casual sex, porn, BDSM, and indeed any other sexual delight that the human mind can dream up."

I believe what the authors' were referring to was their experience with a strand of the feminist movement which went beyond saying that 'women ought to be free to engage in any of the sexual proclivities sought by men,' and instead suggested that 'in order to be equal to men, women ought to engage in the same sort of sexual proclivities as those pursued by men.' And that this latter formulation has proven to be not nearly as empowering as it appeared to them when they first encountered it. In fact, based on their personal experience, it has actually proven to have been the opposite.

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Depends on what the underlying sentiment is. It could be the fundamental issue if sex is viewed culturally as a contractual arrangement.

I think marriage is, or ought to be, "viewed culturally as a contractual {or 'covenant'} arrangement," with sex being one of its provisions.  

1 hour ago, Calm said:

(I understand the legal need of framing it that way given the need to define “consent”, I just don’t see it as emotionally healthy to approach relationships as what amounts to a business arrangement).

I don't see sex as a "business arrangement" either.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

I know many like to use contract and covenant interchangeably, but there are business connotations with the use of contract (as in a contract is entered into to satisfy two entities’ self centered needs) that are not the same as a sacred covenant imo, where ideally we are more focused on what the other need or desires of us than our own. 
 

When I say business arrangement, I mean each providing the other with a product or service in exchange for a desired product or service. 

Edited August 22, 2022 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

22 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I believe what the authors' were referring to was their experience with a strand of the feminist movement which went beyond saying that 'women ought to be free to engage in any of the sexual proclivities sought by men,' and instead suggested that 'in order to be equal to men, women ought to engage in the same sort of sexual proclivities as those pursued by men.' And that this latter formulation has proven to be not nearly as empowering as it appeared to them when they first encountered it. In fact, based on their personal experience, it has actually proven to have been the opposite.

 

If there is such a strand (and there probably is), it seems a bit unfair to paint the entire sexual revolution with that brush. Again, my main issue here is the notion that it’s always men who are the aggressors, and women have the responsibility only to say yes or no. That seems more than a little problematic. 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

What a refreshing take!  I hope this is a revolution(?), or perhaps better stated as a retrogress to historical perspectives of chastity will hold. 

I do see some areas where we can make healthy improvements from our historical roots though.  If there was one area of disagreement that I had with your comments, it is that I agree with the authors points below:

I think that is a very unhealthy way to think about sex.  We can do better in how we teach about it, even in our church, I think.  

I whole heartedly disagree that sex should be inextricably linked to "self-worth".   Self-worth should only be be inextricably linked to how God perceives of us - "The worth of souls is great in the sight of God".  That includes sinners.   The worst thing anyone can do when they fall is lose self-worth.   It is only a downward spiral after that. 

But overall, I agree with the sentiment and am happy to see some cultural changes in this regard. 

LDS and Catholics sound so much alike.

[DT_]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

the Sexual Revolution substantially increased the numbers of women who were willing to take a "no strings attached" / "casual sex" / "hook up culture"

2 Nephi 28:14 predicts "abominations, and whoredoms" in the last days. However, recent studies show there's no "Hook-up" culture anymore.[1]  One study hypothesizes that "growing individualism and reduced sociability" [2] explains the decline.  Do you think the Sexual Revolution is going to make a comeback before the Second Coming?

  https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jomf.12723

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2378023121996854

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Meaningless sex and promiscuity, in the "Hook-up Culture" and outside of marriage, will have this effect. 

Do you think it's almost impossible for older LDS singles to find someone who doesn't have a history?

4 hours ago, pogi said:

But overall, I agree with the sentiment and am happy to see some cultural changes in this regard. 

The majority of men and women are not promiscuous. [3] 

https://datepsychology.com/how-many-sexual-partners-did-men-and-women-have-in-2021/

 

Edited August 22, 2022 by DT_

[pogi]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

There's a lot to this I take issue with, but to start:

The gist of what I'm getting from your cited pieces is that "Men are pigs, so let's not give them what they want."

That's not how I read it at all.  I think it was less about men and more about the self-care and nurturing of holistic wellbeing, and protecting against the downfalls of the big lie that "sex doesn't matter" or is somehow liberating when it is not coupled with love/relationship/trust, etc. 

She gave some pragmatic strategies to protect against potentially emotionally/physically dangerous men, but I don't think it was a diss on men in general, and certainly not about not giving men what they want.  It was more about redirecting attention to what really matters, and how meaningless sex can be a distraction from that. 

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Before the sexual revolution, men were seen as the ones who wanted sex, and women were the "gatekeepers" responsible for keeping themselves chaste against the onslaught of male lust. Thus, it was the girls who got the "licked cupcake" lessons, not the boys. Boys got lessons about controlling their thoughts and not exercising the little factory. The problem I see with what you are quoting is that women are still seen as the gatekeepers, the ones whose job it is to say "no" to men.

Yep, it was terrible.  I don't think the authors are advocating for a return to that. 

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Instead, the sexual revolution is supposed to be about no longer seeing women as the recipients of male lust but as equals in the ability to say yes or no. If a man wants casual sex and the woman doesn't, does "sexual liberation" mean she has to consent?

Ideally no.  But in practice, a woman who wanted to remain a virgin until marriage would not be respected in the eyes of the sexual revolution.  They would be judged a prude.  A virgin, male or female, after a certain age (getting younger and younger) is a joke anymore.

Edited August 22, 2022 by pogi

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Men, if left without sexual constraint, may descend into inappropriate and harmful behaviors.  Same with women.  The tragedy arose when many women, under the rubric of the Sexual Revolution, abandoned a source of power they had previously wielded for the sel-protection and benefit: access to the sexual act.  Perry is quite right about "sexual asymmetry," but she doesn't finish the thought.  Broadly speaking, the advantage on the male half the population (being bigger and stronger) was offset by the advantage on the female side (controlling access to sex) (I am speaking, again, broadly).

We are back to this again somehow. That women’s primary form of power is sex denial? Gross.

So you are going to undo the Sexual Revolution by reimplementing the conditions that caused it? That seems unwise.

Quote

The Sexual Revolution essentially had many of its female advocates (most of which, I think, styled themselves as "feminists") saying: "Men are pigs because they are predisposed toward casual sex, buying sex, etc.  Let us women now join them in their wanton depravities.  Let's give 'em what they want.  Sex without meaning or significance."

Your summary of the Sexual Revolution is entirely male centered and fixated on women somehow doing something to men. Your statement suggests the women involved in it somehow had as their objective giving to chauvinists exactly what they want. That wasn’t their objective. They wanted to have equal power. Both the power to say “yes” and “no”.

The whole demisexual movement is about how meaningless sex can be pointless and/or harmful to some people. The sex-positive crew out there will tell people that are hating casual sex to stop having casual sex. Will people run the other way in spite of that? Yeah, but it is not the primary objective of the movement.

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

We are back to this again somehow. That women’s primary form of power is sex denial? Gross.

So you are going to undo the Sexual Revolution by reimplementing the conditions that caused it? That seems unwise.

Your summary of the Sexual Revolution is entirely male centered and fixated on women somehow doing something to men. Your statement suggests the women involved in it somehow had as their objective giving to chauvinists exactly what they want. That wasn’t their objective. They wanted to have equal power. Both the power to say “yes” and “no”.

The whole demisexual movement is about how meaningless sex can be pointless and/or harmful to some people. The sex-positive crew out there will tell people that are hating casual sex to stop having casual sex. Will people run the other way in spite of that? Yeah, but it is not the primary objective of the movement.

So, it wasn’t just me. 

[Tacenda]

Probably has nothing to do with the thread, or has everything to do with it. I don't like the fact that LDS men aren't allowed to masturbate so have to rely on their wives to take care of them probably much more than non LDS men. It's probably a problem for women out there but surely not spoken of, but that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. 

[DT_]

51 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So you are going to undo the Sexual Revolution by reimplementing the conditions that caused it?

The Sex Revolution already ended. Single and 30 is the new normal. 

Edited August 23, 2022 by DT_

[MustardSeed]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Probably has nothing to do with the thread, or has everything to do with it. I don't like the fact that LDS men aren't allowed to masturbate so have to rely on their wives to take care of them probably much more than non LDS men. It's probably a problem for women out there but surely not spoken of, but that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. 

It’s a problem for women too. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

It’s a problem for women too. 

I am hurt my back today and took some pain relief so I'm embarrassing myself, I'm sure. But also, not understanding this reply. Just thinking maybe my poor post, didn't come across correctly.

Edited August 23, 2022 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

Also, my husband has a huge problem, I don't know if other LDS men have it. He looks down on women that don't remain virgins until marriage. It's almost like he believes the old adage that having sex before marriage is next to murder. If we go to a movie and there's a couple that clearly had sex and they weren't married, didn't show any R material but you just know, well, he'll ruin the entire movie for me when he says how bad they are. 

It's almost caused a divorce the way he speaks about both men and women that don't wait. it almost makes me think he's jealous or something and hides it by saying awful things when we see it, at the movies or for instance while watching The Bachelorette. We can't be in the same room with that show on, he will say awful things about them, and makes me so angry. He closely aligns peoples worth if they've broken the law of chastity. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

33 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I don't like the fact that LDS men aren't allowed to masturbate so have to rely on their wives to take care of them probably much more than non LDS men.

You do realise that the majority of Latter-day Saint men in the world don't have wives, right?

[Meadowchik]

Your sources' admonitions are untenably different from the church's management of sexuality. Thankfully there's more than two choices: women don't have to choose the benevolent sexism of the church nor do they have to choose benevolent or hostile sexism elsewhere. Neither do men. 

If you use a dating app, it's not that complicated: meet for coffee or herbal tea first, something during the day that can be brief if necessary. Choose safe activities to get to know the person. Learn from every experience and develop your personal priorities of what you want in a partner and in yourself. There are people out there looking for a healthy relationship built on integrity and mutual admiration. Sexual compatibility can be important, but it's really not the only thing.

I think Mormonism is too obsessed with sex and in a way that hampers the development of good attitudes and relationships. Sex is indeed important and we must be wise, but we must be free first if we want the opportunity to exercise wisdom at its fullest potential.

Personally as a woman I reject the situation where I am stuck depending on a man indefinitely. I want the type of relationship where we each know we're not stuck and we stay with each other because we want to, not because we have to. Such a dynamic, in my opinion, is far more rewarding than the model I was raised in the church to follow.