A Brief History of Sexual Norms: The Sexual Revolution
How technology and culture promised the separation of sex from relationships
While it may seem that the sexual revolution of the 1960s with its praise of free love seemed to come out of nowhere, that is far from the case. In a previous post, we looked at how the foundation for the sexual revolution was being laid in the early 20th century through the effects of the World Wars and developments in philosophy as well as how some wrapped the movement towards sexual license in the guise of science. The other major shift that created the sexual revolution can be found in the developments of modern technology.
Contraceptives
As far back in history as we can go, references are made to attempts to find effective means of contraception. From ancient times, some used the withdrawal method to prevent pregnancy; a good example of this was Onan who refused to father an heir for his deceased brother as recorded in Genesis 38:6-10. As early as the 1800s BC, there were attempts to use various things such as honey, fruit juice, or even crocodile dung as spermicides or barriers to minimize the likelihood of conception. Some of these seem rather extreme or disgusting to us today, but there is no question that people were trying to prevent the natural results of sexual promiscuity.[1]
Likewise, some ancient attempts at abortifacients were dangerous not only to the child but also the mother. In fact, these were so dangerous as well as considered immoral that Hippocrates included in the Hippocratic Oath: “I will give no sort of medicine to any pregnant woman, with a view to destroy the child.”[2]
However, starting in the 19th Century, technology started to seek better forms of what came to be known as “birth control.” This started with the development of vulcanized rubber which led to the development of more reliable forms of condoms and diaphragms. The perceived problem was that these required the planning of having one on hand, and in the case of the condom, the agreement of the man.
In the 1950s the first birth control pills were developed. These became publicly available in the 1960s. With “the pill” a woman could, theoretically, have sex with anyone at any time without the risk of pregnancy.[3] This radically changed the way society viewed sex. While reliable contraception had been sought throughout history, for the first time it was readily available. This could also be done secretly, as one did not have to carry anything with them.
Readily available contraception also had another effect that many do not talk about; it took away the woman’s easiest rationale for refusing to engage in sex. Normally, a woman could refuse to sleep with her boyfriend stating that she feared pregnancy. Now, this excuse was taken away, thus giving the man the ability to pressure the woman into engaging in casual sex at any time.
Prosperity
Another factor that cannot be overlooked was the incredible prosperity of the post WWII era. Not only did the Baby Boom generation represent the demographically largest group, but for the first time this group of young people had significant discretionary wealth. Consider that something like Woodstock could not have taken place prior to WWII for the simple reason that the young people would not have been able to afford to travel to a farm in New York for a huge concert.
The prosperity also changed the way this generation looked at life. Where young people previously had commitments to work, they now were free to pursue pleasure. Related to this was the rapid increase in college and university enrollment of both men and women. This put many of these young people in close proximity without parental supervision in a way that had never happened before. As a result, the other major excuse that a woman could use to deny sex to a man, namely that her father would find out, was taken from her.
Popular Culture
This era also saw a rapid change in popular culture. Historically, popular culture was the culture of the people in a given area. It was a ground-up culture that connected generations and neighbors together. That changed with the development of radio and television. From that point on, “popular culture” is that which is created by a relatively few people and marketed to the population. This also created the significant effect of separating out generations as different programs were created and marketed to different age demographics.
This new form of popular culture then worked to change the opinions of the people. In a previous post, I noted how Hugh Heffner used Playboy Magazine to change pornography from being something universally seen as bad to something respectable. This also made the discussion of sex and sexual pleasure to be accepted in more circles. Pornography supported the sexual revolution by separating sexual arousal from relationship. Suddenly, millions of men could be aroused by a woman that they never met. This created the illusion that being aroused by someone that you did not know was normal and healthy.
While television of the 1950s and 1960s is often mocked for its pristine depiction of people, including married couples depicted as having separate beds, the movies were slowly sexualizing people. The movies had been elevating the physically attractive for decades. This is well illustrated by the prevalence of the pin-up girl during the Second World War. It also should not be a huge surprise that the first nude model for Playboy was Marylin Monroe, already famous as a Hollywood sex symbol.
One way that television was radically changing the culture was through the news. Often the most subtle and powerful way that television can change attitudes is through the choices of what to show and what not to show as well as how to depict various events. In the 1960s, this was done in support of the various cultural upheavals. One key event that started to change public opinion regarding homosexuality was the Stonewall Riots of 1969. These were riots protesting a police raid on a homosexual bar. The news media then used footage of the riots to show the police forcefully arresting men, which depicted homosexuals as oppressed men, similar to how African Americans were treated during their protests.
This was also the era that the term “gay” became increasingly associated with male homosexuality. This shift in terminology from “homosexual” created a happier and healthier image of this type of sexual activity. As the news media shifted to preferring “gay” over “homosexual” the more positive perspective of the lifestyle was promoted to the general population.
Academia Starts to Undermine our Culture
As early as the 1920s, Italian Communist Antionio Francesco Gramsci (1891-1937) advocated the idea that the only way for Marxism to succeed was for it to fight the cultural institutions which he argued created a “cultural hegemony.” To fight this, he argued that Communists must create a counter-hegemony that would take over and replace these institutions.[4] In the 1960s this was dubbed, “The Long March through the Established Institutions,” by German Communist Rudi Dutschke.[5] This term is often now referred to as simply, “The Long March through the Institutions.”
The Long March through the institutions is the tactic of slowly taking over a country through subverting institutions, particularly education. This was actively promoted by the KGB and included the inserting of Communist sympathizing professors into the burgeoning American college system. The goal of this program was to demoralize the people by systematically teaching the younger generation that their culture and its morals were corrupt. Ex KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov went as far as to say in 1984: “The result you can see ... the people who graduated in the 60's, dropouts or half-baked intellectuals, are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, and educational systems.” [6]
This process of undermining the culture included the undermining of the family through the destruction of traditional sexual morality. In fact, the Communist Manifesto called for the abolition of the family, charging that the family was based on private gain and that parenting exploits children. It even goes as far as to claim that marriage is really about wives in common, but then calls for "in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized community of women."[7]
Reaping What Was Sown
Looking back at the developments leading up to the sexual revolution, it should be of no surprise that it occurred. Our culture was thrown into a veritable witch’s brew that was all moving towards that overturning of traditional sexual morality. What is sad is that the Church was caught largely unawares. Many Christians sent their children to colleges and universities with no idea that their values were being intentionally undermined.
This can be seen as truly demonic, not only for the undermining of God’s order, but also the effects it has had on people’s faith. It has been mused that the real reason that most atheists today reject the notion of a God is that if they were to accept the existence of God, it would limit their sexual freedoms.
[1] Hanae Armitage, “Contraception: An Evolution and History,” Scope, 16 May 2018, https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2018/05/16/contraception-evolving-the-options/; “Ancient Birth Control Methods: How Did Women Prevent Pregnancy Throughout the Ages?,” Flo.Health - #1 Mobile Product for Women’s Health, n.d., https://flo.health/menstrual-cycle/sex/birth-control/ancient-birth-control-methods.
[2] Practo, “The Hippocratic Oath: The Original and Revised Version,” The Practo Blog for Doctors, 10 March 2015, https://doctors.practo.com/the-hippocratic-oath-the-original-and-revised-version/.
[3] It is well known that no form of contraception, short of sterilization, is truly 100% effective, but this was the belief that was fostered at that time.
[4] Karl Thompson, “Gramsci’s Humanist Marxism,” ReviseSociology, 23 June 2016, https://revisesociology.com/2016/06/23/gramscis-humanist-marxism/.
[5] Charles Pincourt and James A. Lindsay, Counter Wokecraft: A Field Manual for Combatting the Woke in the University and Beyond, Kindle. (Orlando, FL: New Discourses, 2021), loc. 148; A video of Dutschke explaining this is: Rudi Dutschke (English Subtitles), 2012.
[6] Edward Griffin, “Yuri Bezmenov (Ex-KGB) on Demoralization,” 1984, https://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/brainwashing/2007/bezmenov.htm.
[7] Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, The Communist Manifesto (New York: International Publishers, 2014), 28.
Scientism is the new religion of the enlightened ones. 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12. The 60s revolution was just the door to finding newer and better ways to sin! Thanks for writing this!