The sexual revolution’s consequences
Published by anonymous August 6th, 2009 in AbstinenceI recently read the following blog and found it extremely inciteful. I wanted to share it with all of you.
The sexual revolution’s consequences–
By DJ Haugh
A series of events beginning in the 1960’s helped to develop a new culture in the United States which would spread across the globe and eventually become known as the “Sexual Revolution.” Some highlights: June, 1960—the FDA approved the use of the first oral contraceptive. 1966—Masters and Johnson published their groundbreaking study, “Human Sexual Response”. January, 1970—the landmark Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade was handed down, eliminating abortion laws in 46 states.
Whether we “evolved” as a culture and changed from an outdated, repressed morality into an era of freedom or began a descent into mindless irresponsibility is a discussion for another day. Suffice to say that mores in the U.S. changed dramatically between 1960 and the early 70’s. Many celebrated the new liberation by experimenting in different ways. XXX theaters became fashionable. Sex clubs flourished. Married couples tried “swinging”. Casual sex became a popular form of entertainment for married couples and singles alike.
Unfortunately, there were consequences. Teen pregnancy became an issue. Divorce rates rose. New sexually transmitted diseases appeared. The worst of these, HIV/AIDS, remains a diagnosis that terrifies most of the country despite amazing progress in battling its long-term effects. Sunday, July 5th, the Journal Sentinel in Milwaukee had a column by James Causey discussing one woman’s battle with HIV. Titled, “Condoms can save your life” the column explains that she contracted the disease at 36 due to unprotected sex with her boyfriend.
Causey states, “…she failed at what she calls ‘condom negotiation’–that critical time before sex when protection should be discussed.” She explains they only had unprotected sex twice yet she contacted the virus from him anyway. She currently is surviving, but her ex, who disappeared shortly after she was diagnosed, has since succumbed to the disease. The tragic lesson, according to Causey is that testing, education and condom use are the keys to prevention.
My take on this story is a little different. I agree this is a tragedy that we need to learn from. The lady in Causey’s story should never have gone through this horror. Where I differ in my conclusion is that she could have almost guaranteed herself protection from ever being infected by HIV had she behaved differently. I realize the virus can be acquired through other means but the fact remains the vast majority of those infected are infected as a result of sexual activity. Stop the activity and the chances of infection are reduced to almost zero.
Unfortunately, our society acts like it wants to encourage certain behaviors and does its best to convince people that they can eliminate almost all of the consequences associated with those behaviors. Education and condom use are a good idea but why is abstinence never given serous consideration by those who say their only concern is to stop the spread of this disease? As Mr. Causey so aptly points out, his subject lost at “condom negotiation”; which is what can happen when you get “carried away, caught up in the moment, or overcome with passion” which generally describes the type of encounters that result in a person being infected with HIV. Relationships that are monogamous and established tend to either plan or establish a set of ground rules for their sexual encounters. This is almost always results in “safer sex.”
What so many want is “freedom” to go out regularly, meet people, have sex casually, and never have to see each other again – nor have any negative consequences associated with the encounter. Those who promoted the sexual revolution and gave us sayings like, “If it feels good, do it!” envisioned sex with no responsibilities (and no consequences) as their version of Utopia. This, of course, came initially from males, since females have always had more common sense when it comes to sex—probably since they are the ones who become pregnant if and when condom negotiation fails. Females, beginning in the sixties, began to buy into the, “if it feels good, do it” mentality and we are now on the march toward either “sexual Utopia” or Sodom and Gomorrah depending on your viewpoint.
I suspect the general feeling of those who promote an anything but abstinence agenda are of one of two mindsets: they either believe they will never make the one mistake that will result in consequences too awful to really think about, or, they believe that to make an omelet, you must break some eggs. What I find most interesting is that many in the group that oppose abstinence based programs have no qualms when it comes to another form of abstinence—tobacco.
If the only answer to the consequences of tobacco is abstinence, why is abstinence so unpopular when it comes to preventing both aids and teen pregnancy? Imagine an ad campaign starting off by saying, “We know you’re going to do it anyway, so here’s the best safest way to use tobacco.” Sounds silly doesn’t it? Yet we want to treat sex in this fashion when we constantly use the argument that “they’re going to do it anyway.” This diminishes us by implying we humans are incapable of learning to control behavior. We can learn to control our behavior—the question is, “Do we want to?”
Source: Milwaukee County Special Interests Examiner