Thursday, February 01, 2007

The Sexual Revolution Ruined Everything

Back in the 50's or the 60's or the 70's when birth control was invented, it spawned the inception of the Sexual Revolution. Up until that time, men could pretty much have sex with impunity. It didn't show. They could have sex with five different girls, notch up their belt or their bedpost, brag about it and everyone would slap them on the back. A woman, however, didn't dare. Why, what if she got pregnant? Her rapidly-expanding belly would tell the story of her deteriorated morality. The slut!

But, lo....the condom or IUD or birth control pill or whatever it was got invented. Suddenly, women could have sex with the same impunity that men had enjoyed thoughout the history of Man-as-Race. Yay! Now women can have sex with five different men, notch up her belt or bedpost and brag about it. She may not get a slap on the back, but one on the rear cheek hints that another notch is due in short order. Yay for women!!!!!

But that whole chaos theory threw a wrench in. Cuz sometimes that ol' birthcontrol don't work! (My OB told me flatly that condoms fail 75% of the time within the first year when used as the only method of birth control - and now we have Emily!) Oh, and other times....when that birthcontrol didn't work....that ol' guy you banged back behind the bowling alley didn't wancha. Or the baby you are carrying. And he even had the audacity to say it might not be his! After all, what with all that sexual revolution going on and all the notches on your bedpost. Hm. He might have a point!

Oh, and let's not even get started on herpes and other forms of sexually-transmitted diseases. Hey, did you know a condom won't protect you from AIDS when you are giving your boyfriend a blowjob? Just thought I'd mention it.

You see, having sex with impunity as far as diseases and pregnancy goes does not remove the hardship or pain or humiliation or difficulty with sexual relations by a long shot. Because shit happens. Diseases get transmitted and babies get made - not to mention the emotional entanglements. And when you equate having sex with playing X-Box or seeing a good movie (i.e. just another way to have a good time), you get a little sloppy about who you are having sex with. You are not thinking about having to look at that person over the breakfast table 35 years from now. You are not thinking about how the fact that he violated probation and had to go back to jail (oh, but those cops had it in for him!) might affect the way he is/is not capable of helping you raise your love-child together. Yeah, you are pretty much not in thinking mode, merely in feeling mode.

And the fall out of all this is the rampantly-growing number of single parents working all day long to try to get enough money to raise their children while some daycare place or neighbor does the actual raising. And the absent parents - do they think of the impact on the children? Or are they too busy thinking about who they will have sex with sans impunity next?

I think that this conversation has a direct bearing on the conversation below, regarding race. Well, not the race aspect so much as the lack-of-child-rearing evident in our society at large. Why is there the logical disconnect between having children and not raising them? Why don't we see the correlation between rising numbers of unwed mothers and rising numbers of juvenile delinquents? Human beings will always have problems with delinquents, but not having a good set of parents around to correct them will likely increase the number of delinquents, right?

Ah, there is so much to say about this question and it is all so controversial. So, as time is short and I am curious what you-all think, I'll let you say the rest. Have at it!