From a thread at the American Conservative:


Church Lady says:    “Have you heard nothing of the women’s liberation movement, that hated thing that conservatives always whine about? Well, it told the Sexual Revolution that it’s not okay for guys to abuse girls, at any age, or to treat them as sex objects. “

But the Sexual Revolution was largely deaf and dumb, and quite more powerful and entrenched in the dysfunctional grassroots, so the oppressive and dysfunctional largely won against the respectful and protective. Those millions of men and increasingly women with largely perverse and perverted ideas about sex welcomed with open arms an ideology declaring there was nothing wrong with them, and not only that, but that acting on anything their dysfunctional minds generated was “freedom.” Freedom from the despised “prudes,” who were by then considered the ogres in the story. This is why there is a huge volume of porn being consumed today, along with all the liberal trash in media and entertainment. This is why socons are vilified by liberals, and porn endorsers and people with a homosexuality agenda are not.

I was asking myself which individuals represent the Sexual Revolution in my mind? Offhand, the first image that came up was of Mick Jagger. Mick Jagger respecting women? Sex? On what planet? Then testimonies of older generations of Catholics telling me how much they had been taught to feel guilty about sexual pleasure. And then other associations, along these lines:
As The Daily Telegraph first disclosed in 2009, in the 1970s the extreme end of the sexual liberation movement included groups who openly campaigned for the abolition of the age of consent. The Paedophile Information Exchange and Paedophile Action for Liberation affiliated themselves to the National Council for Civil Liberties, now known as Liberty.

NCCL complained to the press watchdog about their treatment by tabloid newspapers and in one article admitted it had “plenty of contact” with PIE, and argued that children are harmed by having to go to police and courts after a “mutual relationship with an adult”.

In 1976 the NCCL submitted a response to the Government’s plans to reform sex laws that was dubbed a Lolita’s Charter as it claimed “childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult result in no identifiable damage”. The organisation said that children as young as 14 should be able to consent to sex, to reduce the “harmful effects of the present laws”. Peter Tatchell continues with the same discourse today. And he gets plenty of praise.

And NAMBLA was created in 1978. There you go, Sexual Revolution.


Church Lady wrote: “What’s going on in this case is not the sexual revolution, which was all about having sex freely and lovingly and without social stigma”

No, the Sexual Revolution was all about having sex freely WITHOUT love, and without social stigma.

Carlo says: The sexual revolution was about the fact that sex can be consumed…. I have children in public schools and I see this every day: sex has become totally de-humanized,

It is impossible not to dehumanize sex when you take it out of marriage (or at least a long-term, committed relationship). Because the basis for sexuality is the type of underlying human interaction.

As one of a thousand  grand examples, it was dismaying to confirm how entrenched the sense that people have a right to be completely perverse and dehumanized in respect to sex is in the liberal mindset. For example, if you ask many liberals if they think it’s all right for a person to have sex with a stranger, they will say yes. And if they are young, they often fly into a rage against any suggestion that there may be a problem with this practice, along with its required dehumanized attitudes.

In an Internet exchange with a few young guys about this, I said that having sex with a stranger meant that you could be having sex with a pedophile or a murderer for all you cared to know. Their response was that no, no stranger would ever be a pedophile or murderer.

By decree, I suppose. And 200 million new cases of STDs in 10 years in the US alone?

There you go, the enlightenment of the Sexual Revolution.


Heather said: “Through the media, entertainment (including porn), the educational system, the legal system, policies, etc – yes, there are a lot of people shoving liberal sexuality ideology down everyone’s throats.”

Church Lady says: “You mean people like Rupert Murdoch? Look, calling everything other than traditional sexuality “liberal” is a red herring.”

And it seems you like to call everything other than your limited and selectively branded “liberal” sexuality as “conservative.”

If we are using “liberal” in opposition to “conservative,” and that’s the only two labels used, which ideology says sex is fine outside marriage (even outside a loving, committed relationship)? It’s liberal, obviously.

Which sexual ideology says it’s fine to hook up with someone? To have sex with strangers? To be promiscuous? To have sex with multiple partners? It’s liberal. Which ideology says that spreading serious/deadly STDs should not warrant any legal punishment? Liberal.

Which sexual ideology says that pornography is OK, that homosexuality is not a problem? It’s liberal.
Which ideology says that abortion on demand is fine? It’s liberal.  Which ideology says that an adulterous marriage is fine – especially if the spouses have agreed on it? It’s liberal ideology.

Heather said: “Through the media, entertainment (including porn), the educational system, the legal system, policies, etc – yes, there are a lot of people shoving liberal sexuality ideology down everyone’s throats.”

“Church Lady says: You mean people like Rupert Murdoch?” +”As I’ve already pointed out, conservatives have played a huge role in the commercialization and de-sensitization of sexuality.”
I don’t know what you are trying to say here about Murdoch, but I’ll take a guess. Are you saying that Republican and “social conservative” are synonyms? You need to realize that they aren’t. There are plenty of right-wing political party members that are liberal (in “culture war sexuality” ways), both in UK and US, for example. Do you know what GOPROUD and Log Cabin Republicans are? So, in the US,  one big problem in the Republican party is how many liberals it has, who almost always work against social conservatives. I don’t know hardly anything about Murdoch’s views regarding what we are discussing to be able to comment further.

Heather: I think, in fact, that liberals keep a lot of their sexuality and problems with relationships hidden from view, because it is quite rotten.

jaybird says: You must mean such noted liberals such as Ted Haggard (gay hookers & meth), etc.

My first set of questions to you is: do you believe prostitution is a crime? Should the person procuring sex go to prison? Do you believe that people should engage in homosexual sex? Do you believe that people should be free to take meth? Where do you position yourself in the sexuality culture wars and the lib v. con debate, and how do you label yourself?

Now, then, about the “liberal/conservative” Ted Haggard question. When is it valid to apply a label of “liberal” or “social conservative” or “conservative” to someone? Should you apply it because of what they believe, because of how they act, or because of what they say they are? What if there are contradictions?

I don’t think any of us can say exactly that the people you cited have in their heads, their honest thoughts – at least I don’t have this information. We can all guess, but it’s nothing more than a guess. We know what they say and we know what they do however. My guess about Ted Haggard is that he believes the things he did are wrong, but he had all kinds of psycho-sexual problems and that’s why he engaged in these things. I would imagine he does not call himself a “liberal.” I would say, then: a social conservative who behaved like a liberal. Then again, if he thinks what he did was right, he is a liberal claiming to be a social conservative.

Compare him to a fictional Ted Libbard, who believes homosexuality is normal, who thinks prostitution is OK, and who thinks that taking drugs is fine – and does all of it. That’s a liberal behaving like a liberal.

How about Mary Haggard, who knows that homosexuality is a psychological problem, that prostitution is exploitation and dehumanization of sex, and that drugs are harmful – and does none of it. That’s a social conservative who behaves like a social conservative.


“I was asking myself which individuals represent the Sexual Revolution in my mind? Offhand, the first image that came up was of Mick Jagger. Mick Jagger respecting women? Sex? On what planet?”

Church lady said: “What era are you living in, my dear? Mick is a senior citizen by now. “

(please do without any “dear” etc. when writing to me).

Sexual revolution emblematic of the 50s?  No, the Sexual Revolution really became something big in the 60s. If you only know about culture after Madonna appeared on TV, then you clearly don’t understand much of 20th cultural and social history.

“Church lady said:  Jagger was a rock’n roll singer, a sexual icon, not some leader of the sexual revolution. I might as well pick Marilyn Monroe. “

They represent completely different ways about thinking and acting in relation to sex. Monroe is very much at the service of (patriarchal) married men. She doesn’t represent people having sex without being married, and being a stupid, voluptuous  sex symbol dwarfs everything else in her persona. This is not the model of the Sexual Revolution woman. Jagger, on the hand, was drugs, sex, and rock and roll. No rules, no limits, no commitment, no marriage (nor adultery), everything is great as long as you can get some cheap and fast kick out of it, life is for seeking one escapist thrill after another. No responsibility, no intimacy, promiscuity, no trust,  no accountability, no gentleman, rebellion, no conformity, using women like throwaway, sex dolls, i.e., free sex – that’s Jagger. He was going against everything the 50s preached about sexuality and relationships, destroying it.

Church lady said: ” If you were living it out through media images, that could be a big part of the problem.”

You are free to ignore that Mick Jagger existed and is highly representative of the changes in the 60s, and that media is a fundamental part of late 20th century culture, but Jagger was nevertheless real  and there were millions of people acting in many of the ways that he did (or thinking the way he behaved was fine). The Sexual Revolution is a lot broader and it includes a whole range of destructive attitudes and behaviors that you don’t like acknowledge are a part of it.

Church lady said: “As for your whole pedaphile connection, why don’t you pedal that nonsense to someone who thinks Obama was a muslim born in Kenya. I mean honestly, you do realize that stuff makes you look like a real nutcase?”

Why don’t I pedal it to someone? Because I’m not riding a bike.

Dehumanizing sex on an adult level will always produce the desire in interested parties to legitimize sexual exploitation and abuse on adolescent and child levels. It’s only natural. It’s society’s green light for all the people who have deformed psychologies to say, “Hey, I don’t have any problems. I’m misunderstood; you’re the ones with taboos, old-fashioned ideas, uptight views about sex, etc. What we need is liberation and acceptance – that’s progress.”

People who are responsible and concerned about destructive attitudes and behaviors regarding sexuality address these issues regarding minors; people who aren’t, dismiss them and sweep them under the carpet.

“I think a lot of your criticism of liberal sexuality isn’t really about liberals, but about the sexual confusions of non-liberals who haven’t really embraced the liberal side of the sexual revolution, but have instead gone off in a different direction entirely. “

I don’t think you can restrict the label “liberal” to such a small ideological group. You could use a  more specific  label, to designate this sub-group, but “liberal” is used to designate a much broader group, which in its entirety is quite destructive.

“If by “grassroots” you mean the lower classes, then you have some points. “

No, I wasn’t just saying grassroots meaning less money. Grassroots in the sense of  the people at large, whose sphere of influence is quite limited to their own little circles. Plenty of people with sexually perverted and perverse minds who are middle-class and upper-class. Not only lower-class. That’s what Americans don’t like to face. And they were all given the message that it was all OK. Not only that,  getting their sexual kicks was established as a primacy.

What’s the psychology of a lot of sexual harassers? Obtaining my sexual kick is what matters. The other person is a non-person, to be objected and subjected as I wish. (aside from issues of domination and control, and aggression). And this is one primary aspect of the ideology of the Sexual Revolution. So much of liberal ideology regarding sexuality is all about the individual getting their sexual kicks above all, or irrespective of any ethics.

EliteCommInc. says:    I am of course dying to hear what a ‘real man’ is.

A “real man” is an engaged social conservative 🙂

He is neither negligent, nor irresponsible regarding all the destruction that occurs in society related to sexuality and relationships, so he would never say “sexuality or what people do in their bedrooms is none of anyone’s business.” And as someone else said, for him, sex is quite “sacred” and has a reason to happen in a caring, committed, faithful relationship, which is marriage. Sex is a part of a whole.