Politics in America Part 10:
Evolution of the Deteriorated Relationship Between Men and Women
by Robert L. Kocher
As strange as it first might appear, probably no other factor has affected American politics as strongly as have American patterns of sexuality and what has been termed the sexual revolution of the 1960s. To be certain, there are cultural factors that initially created both the political changes and changes in interpersonal relationships. But the motivations and consequences of sexuality came to develop an independent and dominant force in American culture and politics.
Much of contemporary liberalism is founded on a lack of basic personal integrity and honesty. If you can get a person to compromise their personal integrity and honesty in return for sex, then you’ve gone a good distance toward compromising their integrity and morality enough to become leftists or anything else.
The sexual revolution became a defining element in American political and social culture because its rationalizations created a climate of dishonesty that became generalized to acceptance of dishonesty in all things. At the same time, honesty in anything became a threat that could eventually apply to sex lives.
The Sea-Change in Relationships
To say that there has been a transition in the relationship between men and women in the last 35 years is somewhat like calling the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima a form of urban renewal. The change in the relationship between men and women in American culture has been as devastating to Americans individually, socially, economically, and politically as a limited nuclear war. The damage will take longer to repair than the damage from a nuclear war.
In the last 35 years, a culturally dominant value system and behavioral system has evolved which should be making people edgy. This value system is supported by a highly-engineered system of language which has been evolved over the years to obscure important internal pathology, and which sounds good. While the words sound good, there is a sense something is very warped. Although many people know something’s wrong, they are trapped or immobilized because they don’t have a refutation and have never heard a refutation. Most people born after the very early 1940s do not know how the present system of American values, especially those values governing heterosexual relations, evolved. The best way, and probably the only way, to understand where we are and what we’re facing is to understand how we got to where we are now. From that point a refutation can be built to begin repairing the culture.
The median age in America is somewhere around 32 years old. What has been in existence for the last 10 or 15 years represents the major portion of many people’s lives and may subjectively be looked upon as tradition. For most Americans, the year 1975 is ancient history. However, 25 years is a very short period of time.
Values and Dating
In recent periods, since the so-called sexual revolution of the mid-1960s, a dinner invitation, often based on a chance meeting between strangers, often meant the two people would be in bed together by eleven o’clock that night. At the present it is considered a nearly binding social convention in many metropolitan areas that two people be in bed by the end of their third date.
The prerequisite conditions to be fulfilled before engaging in sexual intercourse, and perhaps conceiving a child, in contemporary culture consists of enough glitter and glibness to last two to four hours along with a modicum of mutual physical attraction. However, this is a very recent phenomenon.
Until recent periods in American culture, sex had been restricted to very serious relationships between men and women—marriage. Dating was considered part of courtship and was considered serious business. In what would today seem like science fiction, there was a time in America, just a few years ago, when you were supposed to know something about a person before going out on a date with them. You were expected to know something about a person’s values, ethics, morals, goals, and family background before accepting a date with them. What? Yup. It was a person’s values which determined worth as a person. It was a person’s values and morals that determined the kind of treatment and decency you could expect from them in a long-term relationship. It was values that you would wind up living with over time and that would determine the quality of two people’s lives together, the quality of children’s lives and the quality of home life. This idea was reinforced by parents and other members of the community.
Sex was very serious and restricted. The childhood training by which the restrictions were inculcated may have been unduly repressive or unwise and probably produced adult maladjustment in some cases. This supposed traditional sexual maladjustment was, and is, used as a contrasting device to argue for engaging in alternative permissive patterns that recent generations wanted to engage in whether or not the previous supposed maladjustment did or didn’t exist. One might be tempted toward the cynical observation that if such maladjustment hadn’t previously existed, it would have been found necessary or desirable to invent it. However, the cultural maladjustment previous to the sexual revolution has been highly exaggerated as evidenced by mental health figures. Every indication is that we have far more psychological problems in this society today than we did 45 years ago. There are people who have been happily married for 40, 50, or 60 years, who have led rich lives and who seem to be forgotten when criticism of traditional American culture and sexuality is made.
Impact of the Kinsey Report
Sex was very serious and restricted. American life went along that way for a good while and then something happened which shook the country to its foundations. The crash started with what was probably one of the most loosely interpreted studies in the world—The Kinsey Report. The story is that it said about 50 percent of American women engaged in sex before marriage. When this study came out during the early 1950s, it shocked the country and was the subject for emotionally-charged debate for at least the next decade. Previous to that time, everybody knew American women did not engage in sex before marriage. The revelation that 50 percent of them had been engaging in premarital sex was too far from what was then the prevalent view of woman’s morals to be accepted. Few people believed the study. It was argued the study must somehow have been biased to come out with figures on premarital sex for women that were so high. And it was argued and quoted and argued. The current view is that the Kinsey figures were far too high and based on biased sampling.
In fact, assuming the figures were even correct in being so high, the figures showed that sex was in most cases treated very seriously, was part of very serious committed permanent relationships, and was very restricted. Most of the premarital sex was with fiancÉs a few times. This is almost inconceivable in terms of the present cultural sexual value system.
The Kinsey statistics opened the door to doubt about traditional morality. At that point a succession of five elements converged interactively to bring on a radical change in sexual values.
One of these elements was the Playboy-type magazine. During World War Two, there were Betty Grable pin-ups and pictures of women in single piece swimming suits. They were neither anatomically revealing or sexually explicit. There have always been girlie magazines. In the old days they were kept hidden in plain brown wrappers. The women in them looked hard and used. For the price of a magazine, and the considerable difficulty in finding one, one could caught a glimpse of a rumored standard of morality and values kept isolated down on the distant side of the tracks where the red lights were. The looks upon the faces of the women, and the content of the magazines, suggested something bitter, alien, isolated, underground, distant from prevalent culture or values. The old pornography was too immediately identifiable as alien to reflect on the image of American morals or normal American women. As a consequence, it was non-corrupting.
With the Playboy-type of magazine, that changed. The magazines paid big money, whatever it took, to buy women for nude gatefolds and poses. The women featured were no longer worn-out looking whores. It was the girl next door, the girl who could be homecoming queen, the coed from a sorority, the woman who was a freshman in law school, the pretty young secretary, the young nurse, the schoolteacher, the woman a man might have a date with next weekend or eventually marry. One by one, they all sold themselves and were spread out naked in magazine gatefolds with inviting looks and increasing sexual explicitness. There was increasingly less psychological distance between what was taking place on the gatefolds and Norman Rockwell’s middle America. The safety and remoteness between the women in the gatefolds and the girl next door was gone. It was the middle American woman and it was becoming the image of the middle American woman’s values. The image developed that the morals, values and bodies of the girl next door were being sold and bought, making them subject to considerable doubt. The question became how cheaply and frivolously women would part with their facade of values.
While the gatefolds were tempting, they brought the secondary effect of disillusionment and bitterness. Faith in the American woman’s values was being seriously pressured.
Coming of Age
A second element was the coming of age of a new generation, some characteristics of which were previously mentioned in this series. In search of a value system, they began to take their value systems from their psychological environment—they took values from each other and from the magazine gatefolds (centerfolds).
If 50 percent of women in previous generations had engaged in premarital sex, this implied permission or at least removed the social stigma from premarital or even extramarital sex. In looking at the gatefolds, it became clear, at least in their minds, that things were changing, and this became a self-fulfilling prophecy.
In some cases, the desire for change represented rebelliousness and in particular a rebellion against empty parental marriages. A coldness and lack of affection or sexuality was noticed in some empty parental relationships and it was assumed poor sex must have been the cause. In fact, the lack of affection and sexual frigidity was the result of a poor relationship, not the cause. Regardless, many among a generation mistook the result for the cause and, in seeking to better their lives over that which their parents had, seized upon sex. Many people are willing to seize on sex, anyway, whether it will better their lives or not. They found a useful excuse in parental marriages.
There were many questions being asked about traditional American sexual values and more questions about whether values should be changed. These questions, as it turned out, weren’t so troublesome because in the interest of scientific inquiry a number of people were more than happy to fill in the answers through a process called conjecture, and the answers always argued that the thing for a woman to do was join that argued fifty percent from previous generations who had engaged in premarital sex.
This led to the third element, which has turned out to be catastrophic for both women and the nation. The motivation for this element was simple—sexual exploitation of women, using a woman for sex. Does sexual exploitation exist? This question will elicit smiles of amusement from the over-sixty-five generation who will say it exists. These old-timers will tell you something about a tumescent male reproductive apparatus generating a sense of urgency which renders its possessor temporarily relatively inattentive to moral-ethical principle. It’s sometimes expressed in more concrete and earthy language.
Because of that urgency, young men once seduced young women. The word seduced was appropriate because it took a good bit of lying and finagling, usually with a woman a man didn’t care about. The seduction process was rather simple. The idea was to be virile and attractive and stimulating while perhaps offering assurances of sincerity so that the sum total would overwhelm a woman’s reluctance. In moments of truthful seriousness, most men grudgingly admitted they weren’t very proud of themselves. In most cases there was nothing to admit, because the process was very infrequently successful. Most men were not that willing to lie, or good at it. That’s why the Kinsey figures for women show such a low incidence of premarital sex having been had with more than one partner.
Along came the 1960s with a new generation of youth. While the generation of youth was new, the condition of affluence was new, and the childrearing practices were new, the state of tumescence was not new nor was the presence of that ever-persistent, previously mentioned sense of urgency. Any morally conscientious image of women and their values was being shattered under the guidance of the latest series of magazine gatefolds, as well as newer statistical reports and articles on sex which glamorized engaging in premarital sex. The atmosphere regarding premarital sex seemed to be changing. The image of women was changing so that it appeared as though more women were regarding sex as an amusing episode. Men were beginning to feel like fools for respecting a woman’s virginity, only to have it skewered two weeks later on some goof’s penis as a joke. There arose a hostile reactive attitude of, “She might as well do it with me as with everyone else.”
So, the push was on. Male dormitory discussions began to center on why she wouldn’t, and how to talk her into it. The implicit premise of such discussion is that the general level of physical contact has proceeded to that threshold which elicits feminine statements of “no further.” When the statement is solidly declarative rather than perfunctory, an attempt to pursue the business on into a wrestling exhibition punctuated by “no”s seems contraindicated. Hence, any further initiatives must take the form of verbal discourse.
Consequently, the issue became an intellectual one. The initial state of the art was undeveloped, and consisted of a crude exploration of the reasons for a woman’s reluctance, followed by rebuttals coupled with what arguments then existed for premarital relations. If religion was a reason for reluctance, then attack her religion. If her morality was making progress difficult, question morality or whatever. Try adding a little crackpot psychoanalysis. Attack her by asserting her reluctance was because of sexual maladjustment. When she talks about whether there is love, commitment, or seriousness, you switch the subject to psychological maladjustment to avoid the issue while continuing the attack. The deceptive intent was usually so obvious that the arguments were not successful and elicited more resentment than capitulation.
But, intellectual genius responded to the challenge. The clever man would deviously lay the groundwork by crusading about the countryside preaching, as well as initiating his relationships with, a seemingly irrelevant and diffuse comprehensive intellectual discourse attacking religion, morality, values, marriage, traditional social institutions, traditional politics, the sexual hang-ups of previous generations, and everything else—psychologically undermining and pre-cornering a woman without mentioning sex between himself and her. Thus was founded one of the cornerstones of the counterculture. If the crusade in radical theology was successful, just incidentally, a woman was beaten down, left defenseless and ready for the last step: which was in bed with her clothes off. The same intellectualized gyrations would also subsequently free the man from commitment to her. The attacks and manipulations became increasingly vicious, subtle, and undermining. Women were becoming increasingly confused and hurt by the vicious and undermining attacks. The arguments and the psychological undermining of women became a dominant social institution from which there was no shelter.
The Metaphysics of Getting Laid
It sounds like a joke, but in absolute seriousness, much of this present great age of turmoil, pseudo-intellectual questioning, and iconoclasm has arisen as the result of an attempt to manipulate women into beds.
The discourse became progressively refined, convoluted, and eloquent. The sex magazines began to hire some of the best writers in the country to machine out an intellectualized base of rationalizations and arguments. Series such as the Playboy Philosophy, the Playboy Advisor and numerous others were eloquent and brilliantly written pieces of advocacy and masterpieces of evasion. That does not imply truthfulness. Eloquence and advocacy techniques have nothing to do with the truth. In fact, they may be very successfully used in circumventing the truth. But, the argumentation was brilliantly written and eloquent as advocacy.
These arguments were entered into a constantly expanding pool of rationalization which also had input from other sources—from liberal ministers, social scientists, and graduate students in, or professors of, philosophy or psychology who were, themselves, either trying to get laid or angry they hadn’t. There were rationalizations from the practitioners themselves, and from others. Young women were out-gunned. They would go out on a date to find themselves facing a highly-prepared entrapping lecture that would last for two days with endless quotes and references to authorities they had never heard of. Propelled by other factors acting concurrently, this pool of rationalization quickly became the dominant force in American sexuality and sexual values, tearing a generation of women to pieces. During the 1960s, the suicide rate of women increased to 150 percent of what it had been—while the suicide rate of men remained constant.
During this time, one of the previously major issues, pregnancy, became a non-issue with the availability of the birth control pill, reinforcing the rationalizations of sex without consequences or responsibility—although neither the pill nor any other contraceptive methods had been effective in non-marital sexual relationships for reasons that will be explained.
It’s important to understand, when all this began, no man believed it (it being the series of rationalizations). It was pseudo-intellectual nonsense. In fact, in some ways, it was a test of women. Men were disillusioned, hurt, and disgusted to find out women would be stupid enough to believe any of it. In one sense, it also became a form of punishment inflicted upon women because they were stupid, immoral, or shallow enough either to believe in or put up with it the first place. If women would put up with any of it initially, they were given a second dose as an expression of contempt. The intellectual content was dishonest, laughable, crazy. It was nothing but distorted, completely dishonest trash that misogynic men employed to twist and cripple a woman’s mind, get her in bed, then drop her and move on to the next victim. It was an obvious con game to be worked upon women.
But, espousal of it (of rationalized sex without consequences or responsibility) eventually became so nearly universal that people weren’t so certain everybody else didn’t believe in it, and social pressures to believe it developed strongly. Finally, people did begin to believe it. Believing it also reduced anxiety and relieved the guilt over behavior—an important factor in its acceptance. People needed a convoluted believable lie that would allow them to construct a psychological defense framework of denial for what they were doing. They needed something to help them dodge responsibility.
The Con Becomes Consensus
By 1970, most young people believed in it because they had seldom heard anything else. What started out as a twisted con game became accepted as truth in successive generations. Moreover, as inconceivable as it seems, what started out as a sociopathic con game that nobody originally believed, has now become the mainstream scientific consensus. Today, one hears a large proportion of psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, and ministers whose conceptions of sexuality, whose conceptions of human emotions, whose conceptions of interpersonal values, and whose conception of morality read as though they were lifted out of Playboy or Penthouse magazines from the 60s. These people are products of that and subsequent periods, of that movement, of that value system, and have integrated it into their professional lives. And they are emotionally shallow and dangerous. To complicate matters further, we will see a little later that engaging in the system of behavior which co-evolved generates crippling emotional blocks which make the distortions in these conceptions seem valid.
Something should be said at this point about the relationship between men, women, and the truth. There is a certain complex conspiratorial locker-room code of honor, or rather dishonor, which exists among many men to the disadvantage of women. In the last several decades there has been a change in values and a change in the code of honor with the consequence it is open season and all women are considered fair game. It is socially acceptable to lie to women in the most calloused manner. Many of the deceptions have become socially institutionalized.
This is illustrated by an incident I can remember from when I was a bartender and manager of a country-and-western bar. I was busy, up to my elbows in beer and disruptive patrons. While all this was going on, I had noticed another activity down at the far end of the bar. A fellow was talking with a woman I knew to be married and not his wife. He would put his arm around her, then speak some soft words with the most serious look I had ever seen on his face. Her eyes would fill with tears. A few minutes later she would burst out crying, then run into the woman’s room. After five minutes in there, she would return, red-eyed but in control of herself. He’d begin to talk to her again and ten minutes later she’d burst out in tears, then run into the woman’s room. This went on for about two hours.
Finally, I had time enough to get down to their end of the bar during one of her absences in the woman’s room. I asked, “Would you mind telling me just what the hell’s going on down here?” He looked at me and roared with laughter saying, “I’m trying to get in her pants!” Of course, that isn’t what he was telling her. She was hearing the most noble words of love and commitment imaginable.
This isn’t a novelty. I’ve seen the same thing and had the same type of conversations at fraternity houses, dormitories, parties, athletic clubs, college faculty social events, locker rooms and army barracks.
Women Are the Enemy
I can remember a parallel incident from the military in the 60s. While sitting by the post swimming pool, a young captain of my acquaintance began to laugh and gloat about his exploits with women. One of his fellow officers, also a captain, had been shipped out for a tour of duty in Viet Nam. Within two weeks he was in bed with the absent officer’s wife, usually on Wednesdays or Thursdays. He had another woman he was sleeping with once every week or so. In addition, he was working on a young woman at a local woman’s college who he planned to sleep with for two months, then drop, as a joke and because he wanted her virginity as a trophy in his list of sexual conquests. She was falling in love with him. She was a very serious women, and if he were successful it would half-kill her, and he knew it and found it amusing. If he could, he and several others were going to try to isolate her, take turns at her, get her pregnant and drive her to suicide as a fraternity house prank.
The contents of that conversation would never be known to her. She didn’t know about the other women in his life. There is no way she would know the reality of his attitude. If told about it, she would probably refuse to believe it.
The point is, there are frequently several versions of what’s going on in a relationship between a woman and a man. These versions are worlds apart. Women do not have access to one of these worlds. A woman may see one side of a man she is dating, and may believe him sincere or may believe she is in a serious relationship with a man, when, in the other world, she is a cruel locker-room joke. It is this second unseen world which counts. It is in that world where her worth is made known. That is the world where one hears the truth. It is the world she never hears.
To some extent, among a proportion of men, women are the enemy until such time as they find a woman they love and want to marry and want to spend the rest of their life with. Those men want what the women who they are not interested in physically control, but they don’t want to be bothered with the woman for any longer than it takes to get it. They want somebody to use until the real thing comes along. They are frustrated at the inconvenience and their own sexual frustration. They take their anger and frustration out among women.
Under the prevalent dominant system of morals and ethics, what two consenting adults, a man and a woman, make in the way of arrangements is supposedly their own business and not to be interfered with. Moreover, today, one is not supposed to be judgmental in one’s evaluation of what one person is doing to another. Presumably, if the other person agrees to what’s being done to them, it removes any degree of culpability or responsibility on the part of the person who is doing it to them. The avoidance of culpability and responsibility is, of course, the underlying goal of contemporary liberal morals and ethics.
In real life, the basis of an agreement between what are described as two mature consenting adults is not as clear-cut and mature as the phrase might suggest. In fact, one of the parties may not know exactly what it is to which he or she is agreeing or is becoming involved. There may be an element of ignorance, naivete or duplicity. One person may be lying to the other—and often is. Women are often not a party to the real terms of the arrangements they are making. The terms of the arrangement are made in the locker room.
The New “New Honesty”
In recent generations, under the “new honesty,” men feel the social freedom to be both more open with each other as well as conspiratorial in their calloused and sexually exploitive dealings with women, and it is considered a breach of male social etiquette to betray the nature of these dealings to the feminine world. Under the newer version of the new honesty, which is, more truthfully, the new dishonesty, men have felt compelled to pay lip service to the new “sensitivity” in which open, bragging locker-room hilarity is not to be engaged in.
Prior to 1975, or thereabouts, depending upon the geographical area, a man might announce he had laid Mary Lou the night or month before, to the chuckling and approval of his buddies (presuming one of his buddies wasn’t in love with her and planning to marry her). Now, with a serious expression, he mentions he has been in a “relationship” with Mary Lou, whereupon his comrades are expected to nod their heads with utmost gravity. Both the relationship announcer and listeners alike are compelled by social convention to synthesize an air of seriousness around the situation. As part of this charade, you are supposed to treat the declaration with painful sympathy as if it were somehow a serious emotional engagement which includes an ennobling element of personal tragedy on his part. Presumably, he gets his Organ Donor Card punched with three units of graduate level social sensitivity credit for having suffered through the noble process of having donated his sex organ to a woman for a night or a few weeks in a painful attempted “relationship” which somehow didn’t work out.
The mock suffering he is going through is offered up as evidence of sincerity which immobilizes any accusations from the woman involved or from anyone else. This nonsense has been acted out for so long, and gotten away with for so long, that any questioning of it is met with theatrical expressions of profound indignation. Men get away with it. Liberal church singles organizations are littered with supposedly suffering men moving from woman to woman and noble suffering to noble suffering. In a spirit of Christian Charity, they demand constant sympathy, understanding, and entitlement as a consequence of that suffering. Mock suffering confers unlimited license.
But the behavioral pattern, consequences, and inevitable outcome under the facade of seriousness and sensitivity are exactly the same as when the boys in the locker room chuckled openly. When it’s over, it’s over. The man knew it was over before it started. A woman got taken for a ride and dumped. It’s just as calloused as it ever was, and beneath the facade of sanctimonious hypocrisy, everyone knows it. Women are the prey and the trophies in a sexual sport.
There is a point at which this conspiracy and this treatment of women becomes barely tolerable to anyone of human conscience. Consequently, these situations occasionally produce bitter social confrontations among, or between, men.
Men can be on double dates or can meet in social situations and one man may hear the other putting a string of lies to a woman which both he and the other man know to be untrue. Perhaps, in some cases, he may not witness the deceptive relationship directly, but may be aware the other man is dating the woman and may know his past record and his attitude. Even if he marries her, she’ll still be little more than a joke or sexual convenience to him. One way or another, from knowledge or observation of the other man in question, or from a description of the situation by the woman, a man will size up the situation quite accurately in two minutes. Perhaps he knows the woman involved and likes her as a friend. Perhaps he doesn’t know the woman, but finds her treatment beyond the toleration of his conscience. Maybe he has a sister he would not want treated that way.
The rules say he must be, if not an active co-conspirator in the form of supporting the other man’s deception, at least a passive co-conspirator in the form of toleration and silence during the deception. Direct exposure or criticism of the deception at that time and place is not apt to be well-received by the other man, and the woman in question will not thank him for ruining the evening, or for destroying her illusions about what she may think will become the love of her life, and she will not believe the interloper. Open moral correction and honesty are not apt to be well received, and those who would make it a career should be advised to expect a precipitous decline in personal popularity.
The man who has private objections is trapped into suppressing them by social convention, by contemporary social values, by ordinary social etiquette, and by probable negative reaction on the part of the woman.
Still, his suppressed anger builds. He may resent having been made an unwilling co-conspirator, or the imposition upon his integrity. A sense of distance, sullenness, subtle hostility and argumentativeness builds between the two men. Eventually, it may erupt into open hostility and a fight. There was a time in this country when such issues were settled out beneath the dueling oaks with crossed swords, pistols or butcher knives. That’s probably the best way to handle them, but the remedy is no longer legally tolerated. A good healthy fear that someone may kill you for fooling with them or someone else seems to be the only thing that works for some people and is a good deterrent to wanton transgressions. Unfortunately, we now have several generations who suffer from an unhealthy complacency and sense of security in freedom from retribution. As a consequence, they feel no sense of limits to what they can do to other people.
In the event she senses anger or sees open hostility between the men, the woman doesn’t know the reason. There’s no way she can know that it concerns something going on in a world to which she has no access and of which she cannot possibly conceive. There’s no way to tell her. It’s men’s business to settle the issue in their separate world.
The New Brazenness
I remember witnessing an incident in the 1950s when a younger man began to talk of his sexual conquests in the company of some older men of stature. He was told, summarily, to shut up about it. That was the expression of the last of a breed of men, and the last of the remnants of an older value system and sense of honor.
Today, we hear about the “new honesty” of the last several decades. In fact, the new honesty is not honest. It is a psychological twisting and an attempt to immobilize people. Under the new honesty people are partially honest. They are somewhat truthful about the type of sex life they would like to engage in and do engage in. Openness up to that halfway point has become a cheap way of claiming what is passed off as character.
However, the honesty and openness is selective and limited. While there is honesty about saying what they’d like to do and what they’d like to get away with, there is not honesty about the consequences. Without honesty about the consequences there is no honesty. Admitting intent to do something that will hurt someone or cripple them up emotionally has a certain degree of honesty, but is not a demonstration of character. Similarly, admitting intent to act in such a way that is foreseeably hurtful or crippling while denying the foreseeability of that injury is neither honest or demonstration of character. It is brazenness. What exists today is not a new honesty, but a new brazenness.
At the present, there is little sense of honor and the language of deception has become socially institutionalized. Consequently, not only is there an absence of prohibitive social conscience relating to honesty or respect between men and women, but dishonesty and exploitation have become institutionalized. It has become so common that most people are either desensitized to it to the point of nonrecognition of it, or else are unaware of any other value system.
The Fantasies of Margaret Mead
Men didn’t need to do all the work in preying upon women. They had help. To no small extent the young, especially during the 60s, were pushed into an agenda prepared for them by the disaffected from previous generations. There were people such as anthropologist Margaret Mead who would appear on late night television during the heyday of the cultural emergence of the hippies, smirking while she announced to parents and others, “You may have been young once, but you weren’t young like the young of today.” She was correct. However, she forgot to mention most of them didn’t stay young very long. Many of them were burned-out jaded wrecks by age twenty-two. Fifteen and 25 years later they were the American mental health statistics that nobody wanted to understand or take credit for. Margaret Mead forgot to mention a lot of facts during her career.
Mead was unquestionably one of the leading forces in the school of cultural anthropological and psychological theorizing underwriting the sexual and social revolution of the 60s. In his book Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth, Derek Freeman substantially discredits Mead’s observations and her conclusions, as anyone with any sense had already done before Freeman’s work.
Freeman’s studies show the Samoan society to be directly opposite to what Mead described in her work. How is this possible? It was possible because Mead saw what she wanted to see and didn’t see anything she didn’t want to see. Mead was psychologically blind. She was blinded by a compulsive discontent with, if not contempt and antagonism toward, the American culture and values endemic at many universities and her school of study. She was probably blinded by her own dissatisfaction in her own life, which was a mess.
As are many other people, even today, she was blinded by her own fantasy of not having to resolve her own conflicts, the conflicts she could not resolve in her own adolescence or even adulthood. In an attempt to escape from and evade necessity for resolving those conflicts she, and people similar to her, seemed to be on an eternal quest for a dream world where no conflicts existed, a place where she and others would not need to labor with the necessity of resolving their problems; so she invented that place by creating a fantasy world in the Samoan Islands where happy, carefree natives supposedly roamed the countryside as perpetual innocent children, engaging in free sex while jealousy and turmoil were unknown.
She never gave up. She invented the same fantasy world a second time in her evaluation and theoretical underwriting of perpetually innocent flower children living the sexual revolution of the 1960s. As her mentor Franz Boas concluded from her studies of Samoa, (as quoted in Freeman’s book), “With the freedom of sexual life, the absence of a large number of conflicting ideals, and the emphasis upon forms that are to us irrelevant, the adolescent crisis disappears.” That was the conclusion they were seeking and the type of freedom they wanted, and they had just about concluded it before Mead left for Samoa. The evidence and the conclusion were not hard for her to find in the few months she was there. She didn’t even need to speak the language.
Fantasy lives were invented and reported in Samoa during the twenties and again in the youth-centered, sexual-cultural revolution of this country during the Sixties. Neither existed in real life. Samoa did not at all resemble the Mead fantasy. Virginity was prized. Premarital sex was not tolerated. Adolescents had the same problems as elsewhere in the world.
Neither did the reality of the 1960s and 1970s resemble the Mead fantasy. In this country, at the Woodstock music festiva—which was supposedly the idealization of everything that was the 60s—teams of doctors had to fly in enough thorazine tranquilizer to knock out battalions in order to keep supposedly happy, carefree festival participants from killing each other during toxic psychosis from drugs. This outside intervention was a terrible mistake because it allowed perpetuation of a dangerous romanticized myth which continues today.
In the late 60s, I was studying hippie and drug culture. I had studied one group of people, aged 16 to 22, who finally formed a commune in Iowa. Most of them played musical instruments. Much of the time was spent “turning on” with various drugs. One of the women or girls, depending upon how you look at her, was about 21 and had an infant about six months old. The group would casually lay the infant down between drums and electric amplifiers where it would convulse with fear and shock to the blasts and noise of the music they were playing. One day someone picked up the infant and, in the words of one of the commune members, “noticed it was dead.” Nobody seemed very concerned about it. It was as if nothing of any importance had happened.
They were youthful, beautiful, passive, appealing, soft-spoken, innocent-looking, articulate, photogenic, disarming, child-like, with absolutely no presence of mind, sense of responsibility or sense of the reality of what they were doing or what was going on around them. They were beautiful, innocent-looking, highly destructive borderline psychotics. It was endemic in the hippie and youth subculture. Today, many of them are 30 or more years older with essentially the same mentality.
The young of the 60s and 70s were a theoretically-raised generation. They had been raised according to the permissiveness theorized by liberal theoreticians for years. When it became apparent in the 60s that a generation of youth shared the alienation from the culture and alienation from adulthood of the alienated intellectuals and childrearing architects of previous generations, those architects were quite certain everything had worked. There was celebration that the expected millennium had arrived. There was an attempt by the alienated of previous generations to sell that celebration both to each other and the world with Mead as the Wizard of Oz.
Mead was correct. No one had ever before been young like the young of that period were young. But, there was nothing for her to smirk and gloat about. Something had gone wrong. Like the supposed innocence and eternal rapture of Samoa, the eternal innocence and rapture of the generation of the last half of the 60s through the 70s, the generation she had helped to create, were her own fantasy. Beneath the photogenic myth, which still persists, were ugliness and problems to which she was blind and to which people still refuse to admit exists. Many social scientists, today, are still committed to the myth of the eternal flower children of the 60s and 70s.
Many, like the Clintons, went on to destroy each other’s lives, while taking the anger over their condition out upon society in the form of various diffuse intellectualized social and political attacks.
Supporters of Mead say Freeman was unfair in his book because it was the wrong time, after Mead’s death, for a refutation of her work. When would the right time be? The answer is never, because, like Mead, her supporters never want to give up their belief in a fantasy world in which the growth conflicts of adolescence need not be resolved, and they cannot relinquish their resentment over the necessity to resolve their own conflicts as well as having to give up eternal youth. In their mind, there will never be a right time to do that.
Transition to Responsibility
The conflicts (crisis) of adolescence are not brought on by the culture and there is no way to avoid them. They are not the conflicts of adolescence, but basic responsibilities of life that happen to increase during adolescence and are difficult for the inexperienced to deal with. A person at age 21 is entirely different from someone at age 11. A person at 21 has far more responsibilities, has far more weight on their shoulders, and is required to know and do much more than is a person at age 11. The transition between being an 11-year-old to being an adult is intrinsically difficult. There’s no way out of that difficult transition. One must either undergo it or remain an angry difficult child forever.
In the 60s, as in other periods, many of the resentful or spoiled from previous generations who thought their own youth had not lived up to their fantasies, or thought that their youth could have been better, or thought that they had been cheated out of something, or thought that things somehow didn’t turn out right, or realized that they were slipping; attempted to rejuvenate their youth vicariously by encouraging the young of the 60s to live their old fading fantasies while also taking their bitterness out on society by pushing the countercultural attack. Intellectual life intrinsically breeds this type of mentality and resentment because much of it is centered at colleges and universities, which are worlds of eternal youth inhabited by people aged 18 to 21. The psychological frame of reference at these places is dominated by youth values. When you’re 22, you no longer fit in. To be 35 is to be ancient. The only people in that world who age are graduate students and professors. They are morbidly aware of it and are pushed into looking backward.
The temptations and psychological stresses of the college world are formidable. It’s hard to leave a world of youthful 19-year-old faces every day to return home to a 35-year-old spouse. It’s easy to become resentful of youth, of aging, of life. It produces a certain amount of endemic sadism in faculties.
At the super-liberal progressive woman’s colleges, many of which are little more than training camps dedicated to producing borderline personalities, young women were being programmed into participating in all the concepts of social change and progressive new freedoms. They were to graduate as what they were told was a sophisticated, independent, brilliant, liberated, cosmopolitan, progressive woman. As they were programmed, they would mouth to whoever would listen that marriage was not a prerequisite to the enjoyment of sex, and that sex need not be attached to emotional commitment or outmoded concepts such as love, etc. etc. Once programmed, the upper classwomen would take the freshmen under direct command the minute they hit the college gate. I remember talking to a woman student at a liberal college about the big sister program during the early 60s. In the big sister program, juniors and seniors were assigned to help freshmen adjust to the college. She bubbled that the big sister would start out by helping the little sister make arrangements for contraceptives.
We began to see contemporaries of the elite liberal woman’s colleges who—pumped up by empty slogans and generalities, and as a consequence considering premarital sex as a militant exercise in their unquestioning pursuit and expression of something called social change—implemented sex with the spirit, style, precision, determination, and sensuality of a nineteenth century Prussian infantry colonel exercising his troops. The less militant would just mouth the programming, whereupon somewhere along the line someone would simply take them at their word, plop them in bed for a while, then move on according to their own stated rules, leaving them unaccountably angry if not infuriated.
One earlier product of this system was Gloria Steinem who according to biographers had an abortion in 1956, and with the aid of her transfixing, Diana-Rigg look went on to establish a powerful political/social movement, and train a militant army rabid with hatred toward men while justifying, if not encouraging, abortion. In the 60s, like flies to dung, it began to attract women with similar backgrounds. The childish self-destructive twist in the movement was that it focused conveniently and exclusively on hatred of men and on abortion while avoiding examination of the behavior and the processing system that put them in the position they were in.
To this day, it’s hard to imagine what kind of outcome they expected or what they wanted. Perhaps they thought Margaret Mead or their sociology professor was going to burst into the motel room cheering and give them a Nobel prize. It didn’t happen. The slogans they were taught to follow and the lives they began living turned out to be as empty as the sexuality the slogans underwrote. The results clearly didn’t conform to expectations. They were disillusioned and angry. They stayed disillusioned and angry. Many are still angry to this day. Anger isn’t even a strong enough word. The more they tried it, the angrier they became.
If the purpose of their college programming was to endow women with an independence from men, the type of behavior and relationships into which the woman were being channeled would insure a hostility and distance between them and men—which would be mislabeled as being independence. Many of the alienated and neurotic on faculties were cloning themselves, their discontent, their bitterness, and their type of destructive relationships in women students, calling it independence. Some of them were, and are, practicing sadists using intellectual “questioning” of values as vehicles to cripple people. The high student suicide rates at many liberal schools aren’t an accident. It was probably the most hideous crime of this century, but there is no law against it and no accountability. It’s a crime that wasn’t committed with a hand-gun. It hasn’t changed.
Liberal college faculties are always quick to interpret changes in student attitudes occurring at these institutions as successful ventures in achieving independence from parents. But, while student values do change from those of their parents, it also happens their values coincidentally happen to conform to the values of the faculty and the values the faculty desires to program into them. The finding of independence by students is largely a myth promoted by liberal faculties to manipulate students and cover up the fact students are being programmed—or being sadistically abused as an outlet of the various resentments and dissatisfactions of faculties.
Attractive young women are everywhere the enemy. They remind older women of what has passed and what they can no longer be. They remind aging male college professors and others of what they can no longer participate in. They are often treated as enemies by rogue men. They are subject to constant resentment and subtle attack.
The tragic thing is, for the last 35 years, almost nobody, and certainly not very many men, would tell a young woman the truth about anything. In the beginning, nobody wanted to. Later, women were surrounded with people who either couldn’t face the truth or didn’t know it. Many young women would beg and plead for someone to be truthful with them or for someone to make sense, but to no avail. It’s torn several generations of young women to pieces. In an act of philosophical suicide, many of them gave up, surrendered their values, and entered an empty existence, feeling there was nothing else. The national suicide figures indicate the suicide was not merely philosophical.
If the idea was to construct a psychological environment designed to destroy women intellectually and emotionally for purposes of sexually exploiting them, it’s been done. Almost from the moment she enters puberty, and certainly from the minute she enters college, she is systematically, if not scientifically, attacked, picked at, twisted, browbeaten and undermined. And, if oppositional-defiant and sadistic personality elements in this society have their way with liberal, values-free sex education, the undermining will begin at age five.
For the last 35 years, women have been psychologically attacked, they have had their emotions invalidated, their values undermined—by men, by educational institutions, by church denominations where 30 percent of the clergy are engaging in sex with congregation members, by the media and often also by other women. The women who were twisted into believing the destructive distortions subsequently made it their business to push it on other women—sometimes as an expression of their anger or jealousy, sometimes to engineer an unquestioning supportive psychological environment for themselves which wouldn’t threaten their own denial and other pathological defenses, and sometimes because of a psychological mechanism called identification with the aggressor, in which oppressed people seek to mimic the characteristics of, or identify with, the people oppressing them. There is also an additional self-protective element which will be discussed later.
It is also the habit among some people who have either lost everything or thrown it away, that, in their bitterness and resentment, they resent others who have what they haven’t and they work to see others don’t have anything either. There is also an old saying, “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.” That fury is nothing compared with the resentment and fury of a woman who has messed up her life, the woman who is living an empty existence, who is arrogantly and aggressively trying to deny it, and who sees another woman who looks like she has found a chance for happiness. Hence, one source of motivation for the so-called feminist crusade against marriage. For these and other reasons which will be discussed later, liberalized women often became, and still are, the worst oppressors of other women.
The New Order
The last element in the cultural succession underwriting contemporary patterns was the Playboy conception of women. Under the new order, women were supposed to be nice, sweet, open, warm, vulnerable, loving, very sexual, capable of intimacy and strong feelings of commitment, was trusting—and disposable—to be replaced by another relationship in which the woman was nice, sweet, warm, vulnerable, loving, very sexual, capable of intimacy and strong feelings of commitment, was trusting—and disposable. This conception still dominates the single world today, and it can be heard in various forms at singles social groups. It is also the implicit conception in many of the trendy women’s magazines.
Basically what was being demanded was a spoiled teenage kid’s fantasy of having an endless supply of sweet innocent vulnerable young women in love with you until the end of time, while not having to choose between any of them, and while being able to dispose of them if something better or more novel came along.
The inherent psychological strain in living that role has yet to be seriously recognized in 35 years. Failure to recognize, if not absolute determination to avoid recognition of, that inherent psychological strain by professionals in mental health is one of the reasons psychiatry and psychology have become dangerous.
Psychiatric literature, and particularly psychoanalytic literature, talk about the nobility and drama of doing psychotherapy with holocaust survivors, what few there are left. The truth is, few things are more psychologically traumatizing than a bad love affair. The reason is the absolute vulnerability in a love affair. A person has their hopes for the future, their ideals, their innermost dreams, their trust, their everything, invested in a love affair. If that is betrayed and destroyed in them, they are psychologically gutted. It often results in suicide or self-destruction in one form or another. It kills a person from the inside out. I’m hard put to understand why more people in the psychological or psychiatric professions don’t take it far more seriously than they do.
Many women may have started out nice, warm, and loving, initially, but it didn’t last long. About the time they were opened up, disposed of, and replaced a few times, they began to change. Going through it once is enough to leave serious scars and mistrust. Going through it twice is nearly psychologically lethal and emotionally sterilizing. A healthy human being can’t be put through it and remain healthy. Not atypically, the woman who was put through it was subsequently ready to kill any man who tried to get close to her. Then, a generation of Playboy-philosophy oriented men pretended to be abstractly puzzled to understand why.
The Sexual Revolution Arguments
Sexual life styles evolving out of this confluence of social forces were based upon a series of arguments and conceptions. Some of them were pseudoscientific conceptions about which more will be said later. There were also some errors or distortions of reasoning, one of which is immediate exclusionary focus. In one form, it consists of starting an argument or an analysis in the middle of a series of connected events and analyzing the cause exclusively from that point. By starting in the middle of the series of events, people avoid acknowledging the importance of earlier events.
In a second form, it consists of concentrating or arguing exclusively from the standpoint of one or several causative factors or consequences which occur simultaneously so as to avoid looking at other important factors.
The arguments and concepts which underwrote the sexual revolution often shared an element of immediate exclusionary focus. For instance, one of the arguments for liberalized sex is built on a simplified concept of immediate transaction or exchange mechanics. That is, if someone enters into a sexual relationship with a woman in which he receives sexual pleasure and she gets sexual pleasure, the transaction is complete, everything is simple, the books balance, and all responsibility supposedly ends at that point. Two people may, in fact, enter into such a relationship.
Focusing on this as an argument for a life style or a moral/value system is shallow and severely over-simplified. It excludes other important factors out of existence. It begins from having pre-adopted a position of emotional sterility or a purely mechanical point of view. Contrary to the simplicity of the transactional argument, in real life there are human emotions involved which continue after the transaction and must be taken into account in the life style. What about emotional injury to other people? What about the wisdom of getting involved in such a situation? Is there a component of psychopathology as a prerequisite to, or as a result of, such interactions? Is any kind of genuine relationship possible with someone who engages in sterile transactions without any emotional bonding? The answer to the last question is, no.
Similarly, focusing on “—two mature people in a mature relationship having the right to enter into whatever kind of relationship they want—” excludes the real issues involved. The issue is not civil liberties, but painful consequences.
The exclusionary focus on sexual exchange mechanics has been prevalent for 35 years. The emotional sterility implicit in exchange mechanics has also been prevalent for 35 years.
Self-Referencing Delusional Systems
Many of the theories of sexuality and the present sexual value systems are essentially highly-directed self-referencing delusional systems that evolved and were modified over an extended period. They were devised for a purpose and serve a purpose. A number of people wanted to do something unreasonable and they needed to deny reality to do it. Specifically, they wanted to engage in exploitive or permissive sex while denying they were doing it or denying that there were destructive consequences. They either wanted a system of warped reasoning which they could employ to talk someone else into believing there were no consequences, or they wanted to delude themselves that there would be no consequences so as to devise permission.
The process started with simple single verbal arguments. In response to criticisms or weaknesses in the original arguments, new arguments were fabricated to plug the holes. In response to further criticism, further arguments were fabricated, and so forth resulting in construction of a delusional system.
The arguments for liberal sex are complex, self-referencing, logical, and they sound good. The problem is, the arguments are delusional and don’t conform to reality. The purpose of this delusional sexual system has been fulfilled. The purpose was to get shallow spoiled kids, some of whom are now approaching 60 years old, into bed with other shallow spoiled kids, and this has been done. However, regardless of what the delusional system denies, it has left a massive trail of devastation through individual lives and social institutions.
Reality Trumps Denial
Something should be briefly mentioned about delusional systems and denial. Once they become well-developed, there is no way of refuting them in argument. There is no rational way of refuting denial. The refutation occurs in reality. A true excellent example of a delusional system was a man I knew. He belonged to some kind of religious group that believed the world was going to end in June of 1978. He quit his job and sold his worldly possessions, so that he could spend the last six months of the earth’s existence with his family. In response to questions about why he was so certain this end was to occur, he had an iron-clad answer for every question you would bring up. You couldn’t break through his arguments with a bulldozer. Throughout that June, he and his family sat huddled in their apartment waiting for the end to come.
The only problem was that none of it was true. His arguments did not conform to reality. The world did not come to an end in June of 1978—at not least for some of us.
Paradoxically, the resultant confusion had the effect of increasing his belief in his faith. When reality directly contradicts a delusional system built upon denial of reality, the consequence for adherents is often to seize even more desperately upon the habitual irrational denial that constructed the delusion, rather than accept reality.
In the same way that the delusional person can fend off criticisms of his thinking with complex explanations that the earth is going to end in 1978, there are within the delusional sexual argument system ingenious and fascinating explanations to either explain the individual and social deterioration away, or to rationalize it as not being a reasonable consequence of the system of the sexual patterns causing it.
Present cultural sexual values conform no more to reality and have little more sanity than the argument that the world was coming to an end. Neither of the sets of explanations makes any more sense or is any more believable than the other on the reasonable side of the boundary between truth and insanity. Neither of the sets of explanations is more refutable than the other, for the same reasons. For practical purposes, several generations in this country have argued, or are arguing, themselves and each other into a psychotic or nearly-psychotic mental state in attempts to rationalize free sex—with consequent undermining of national mental stability.
The arguments and conceptions devised as rationalizations for the sexual revolution purposely excluded many normal human emotions. For instance, lately, at least a few psychologists and some other people have begun talking about the importance of sexual bonding. Sexual intercourse tends to induce a type of emotional attachment or bonding between people. This phenomenon is one of the attributes of a mature relationship. It particularly causes bonding in women. Contemporary men demand that it produces bonding in women. If such bonding doesn’t occur, they brand the woman as a cold bitch. If it does occur, they brag about being the human equivalent of King Kong. Then they demand to walk off and break that bonding at their convenience if they weren’t serious about the woman from the beginning. The inherent grief reaction on the part of the woman is essentially diminished in importance within the scheme. But, in fact, bonding is the supremely important aspect of the situation.
This idea is not new. Everybody knew it previous to the sexual revolution. It was obvious. It wasn’t a matter of theory: people could look and see it just as they saw trees, grocery stores, the full moon, traffic signs, or whatever. But, the concept of sexual bonding somehow disappeared and has been expunged from concepts of sexuality because it threatened to throw a monkey wrench into the idea that one could have free sex without consequences.
Pertaining to a parallel form of exclusion, whatever happened to our knowledge of grief reactions? People have grief reactions when relationships break up. These grieving periods typically last from six months to two years, but some last much longer. Since the sexual revolution, the predominant sexual theorizing of effortless going from one to another in episodes of free love ignores grief reactions. One can find, time after time, an absolute refusal to admit bonding or grief reactions existed and played a part in the swinging-single life style. Time after time you will see single people going from one situation ending in turmoil to another. Many of them are completely miserable. This misery is expected as part of the life style. Participants expect sympathy for their morbid condition. Yet, in apparent contradiction, nobody wants to admit the cause of the turmoil. Why?
If profound grief reactions and sexual bonding were serious real characteristics of human beings, they threatened the fantasy screw-and-laugh-it-off-and-move-on life style a generation of perpetual spoiled teenagers wanted. Rather than give up the life style, a generation decided to deny reality, including denying serious consequences of sex. If a part of reality, including grief and bonding reactions, threatened instantaneous gratification and convenience, it was excluded in the theories and rationalizations. Instead, attention was focused elsewhere. Any realistic conception of reality could be sacrificed to the desire that all things are possible and nothing need be inhibited by reality or seriousness.
The rationalizations underwriting the sexual revolution and the pressures being put on women were brilliant pieces of advocacy and theorizing. Unfortunately, the rationalizations didn’t conform to reality. Women were going through bonding reactions, profound grief reactions, anxiety reactions, and at the same time they were having their emotions denied or invalidated by being told these things weren’t supposed to exist. They would get hurt, then get punished a second time and subjected to severe psychological oppression for feeling hurt by being accused of having various kinds of “hangups” or being subjected to other forms of vicious psychologizing. This punishment and suppression pushed women, and later men, into a dangerous, culturally enforced self-isolation and pathological denial of their emotional selves. Is it any wonder why the mental health statistics are so disastrous in what are now several generations of women? They have systematically been driven crazy for more than 35 years. They have been driven to the point of being suicidal.
A generation of egocentrically pathological, perpetually teenage men devised a new life style in which they expected to toy with the cream of women’s vulnerability at convenience for their own amusement. Women were supposed to forget being disposed of, supposed to forget being criticized for their so-called “hang-ups,” then they would be able to move into next month’s magazine gatefold relationship. Beautiful, disposable, renewable sexual appliance and plaything was the model.
The Emotional Issue
The reality was, it didn’t work that way. The new system of sexual values was too hard on the human heart, and this should have been, and still should be, the primary issue in the sexual theorizing taking place. People with genuine feelings of any depth can’t survive the demands of the sexual revolution emotionally. Psychopaths or sociopaths can live that way, but genuine feelings of any depth can’t survive it. Social change doesn’t have anything to do with the moral issue. A pseudo-cause or pseudo-crusade of triumph over Victorian anti-sexuality isn’t the real issue. The concocted concept of a grandiose sexual revolution has nothing to do with it.
Talking about the human heart is a bit more concrete than metaphorical or poetic. Since this was originally written a study was done at Johns Hopkins and reported in the advances in medicine section of the 12/5/05 issue of Time magazine:
“There’s more to a broken heart than a songwriter’s cliche. Stress cardiomyopathy, sometimes known as the “broken heart syndrome.’ is associated with the loss of a loved one and often mistaken for a classical heart attack. But researchers at Johns Hopkins studying a group of mostly female patients discovered that the syndrome is caused by a surge of adrenaline and other stress hormones that temporarily stuns the heart muscle. There is no permanent damage to the heart, however, and patients usually show dramatic improvement in a few days and complete recovery within two weeks”
The qualifying term in the above is “usually.” My expectation here is that attending physicians will use this study in obtaining immediate differential diagnosis between people presenting with apparent heart attack due to purely physical factors versus primarily psychological injury.
My own observation over decades is that the syndrome can last for far more extended periods of time and can reoccur intermittantly. It can be debilitating over an extended period. In one form or another, this was commonly known in this culture but has been dismissed from serious consideration in the interest of promoting and/or licensing a shallow uninhibited psychopathic devient hedonism.
The possibility of its acting synergistically with physical weakness over time should also be a consideration.
There never was a sexual revolution in America. What happened is there occurred a period in which emotionally shallow and critically positioned sociopaths succeeded in deleting healthy concepts of emotionality, and any morality which recognized those concepts, from the culture.
The issue is whether permissive sex is painful, whether it is scarring and emotionally debilitating. The issue is whether permissive sex is morally and emotionally desensitizing. The issue is whether an emotional sterility is prerequisite to, or is a consequence of, participation. The issue is the inconsistency and arbitrariness within the permissive sexual value system. The issue is whether, once trivialized and separated from deeper emotional significance, sex can be re-integrated with emotional significance. The issue is emotional violation. The issue is whether a woman who is being asked to bond and unbond at arbitrary convenience for the sake of amusing episodes is being liberated.
The answers to these questions are perfectly clear. If they aren’t intuitively clear, the suicide rates and mental health statistics of the period should be clear.
I, personally, have not heard those issues seriously discussed in any national forum in more than 35 years.
The problem with free sex is that far more people think they can live it, or say that they can live it, or wish that they can live it, than can actually live it. It requires various combinations of emotional coldness and detachment, psychopathic deviance, emotional shallowness, compartmentalized functioning, and denial. The prerequisites are not trivial and do not facilitate capacity for close relationships. This suggests one is making a degree of sacrifice or inhibition of close interpersonal relationships in this choice.
Women were trying to act it out as if it were not hurting, and many still are today, because that’s what they were universally being told by the new theories and social pressures that good liberated women were supposed to be able to do. But in reality a generation of women was being emotionally mauled and torn to pieces, while being admonished not to complain or to ask too many questions, because doing so would be an indication of sexual hang-ups, lack of liberation, or inability to form close relationships or whatever the latest argument was. The close relationships were about as close as the nearest door.
Women go through profound depressions within this life style and value system. One of my co-workers parked her car in front of her ex-boyfriend’s house, then blew her brains out with a pistol. Eating and digestive disorders are very common in this life style and have become a cultural characteristic of the last three decades. After the breakup of a relationship, another woman of my acquaintance could barely eat, and when she did eat she became sick to her stomach. Five feet nine, she went from 140 pounds down to nearly 95, and had to force-feed herself to get back to 105 pounds. Several other female acquaintances, one a clinical psychologist, both initially physically healthy and normally proportioned, lost 20 percent or more of their body weight and were barely recognizable. One of them went through it twice in two years.
After they were disposed of, women often did go on to a series of additional relationships. After being disposed of, a woman is hurt, is lonely, is in need of some sort of companionship, in need of comfort, is often desperate for a good word from anybody and needs some sort of love and affection. Exploitive men will sense weakness and capitalize on it. They’ll give her just enough sympathetic talk and superficial concern to hook into her needs and desperation so they can soften her up and push her into bed. That’s as far as the relationship usually goes and it may not last long. Often, it ends when the woman asks for something real.
In singles organizations, exploitive men will surround a newly divorced or widowed woman who is in pain and cut her to shreds before she knows what has happened to her. They’re like sharks. Questioning what these men are doing is forbidden because that is being “judgmental.” The social admonition not to be judgmental is one of the tactical mechanisms developed to sexually exploit and control women.
A series of exploitive men will keep hitting a woman, keeping her off balance, then exploit her instability and desperation. The more she is hurt, the more desperate and lonely she becomes, and the more desperately she seizes upon the next man in the series, and the more she is exploited. She’s tossed from one sexual exploiter to the other. The cycle between exploitation and desperation builds on itself. She may eventually psychologically collapse or have a psychotic break. Hospitalization or some other form of isolation is almost required so that she can be allowed to regain some equilibrium and break the cycle.
Her feeling of desperation is also intensified by a secondary source of isolation and desperation—a sense of psychological separation or isolation generated by a developing bitterness and mistrust which further isolates her from closeness with men. This increases her loneliness and desperation, making her still easier to prey upon. The bitterness and mistrust lock her into desperate loneliness which form part of a sexual cycle between desperation and exploitation which feeds upon itself. The pattern became strong among women during the start of the sexual revolution and continues in single women today. Some of them, consciously or subconsciously, attempt to bring a sense of stability and love in their lives by having out-of-wedlock children. That is one among several reasons why birth control and sex education are not effective.
Nice Guys Finish Last
Development of a common morbid psychological twist compounds the situation. The sexually exploited woman builds and accumulates feelings of anger, resentment and mistrust. The oppressive behavior of exploitive men will control and repress her anger for her. She can’t reveal her anger around them because, since they don’t care about her, they will tell her to leave immediately. Such men are not very good listeners. They force her to hold her anger inside which has the effect of controlling her anger for her. A man who loves her and who is consequently less repressive, does not control her anger for her. She has more freedom to say what she wants to him and he’ll tolerate it. Her repressed anger begins to be expressed under more healthy non-repressive conditions and becomes directed toward him, destroying the relationship. Consequently, she cannot enter into relationships with good men, but only men who are cold, oppressive, and care little about her, so that they maintain her pathological blocking and control her anger for her through threat and instability in the relationship. Nice guys finish last. This dooms her to a cycle of repetitive bad relationships.
The above is one of the dynamics in the relationship between pimps and prostitutes. By his ruthlessness, the pimp controls and represses a prostitute’s anger for her and is one of the only men with whom she can have a relationship.
Many women seek cold or exploitive men who will control their anger for them. Such relationships also function as a form of emotional safety. The emotional distance in the relationship is a way of preventing someone from getting close to them and hurting them. They can’t trust love. They can only trust or feel secure in sterility and distance. They complete their defense intellectually by relabeling their sterility and distance as liberation.
This is one of the dynamics underwriting “liberated” sterile marriages.
Politically, it also is the key to the Clintons’ almost eerie popularity among women. The Clintons were a public support for the pathology described above. By example, Hillary is selling women on their own sterility and pathological defenses. By example, Bill is validating their need for it. Women’s groups such as NOW, who one might think would deplore Bill Clinton’s abuse and degradation of women, instead support him as an ally in reinforcing the system of thought underwriting their agenda.
To be continued next time.