Does anyone else miss the loss of pre-Sexual Revolution ideals about physical intimacy? (religion, society)

[katharsis]

I am not a hypocrite, as I am 63 and had several partners who were not my husband in my past (although not while married). However, that being said, I do think there is WAY too much "easy sex" today. In addition to all the other problems caused by casual sex, I think the lack of courtship also lessens romance, and I think that is sad. (I am appalled when I read threads with the general consensus being that if someone is not willing to have sex by the third or fourth meeting, that person should be "dropped". It just seems to me that most people under 40 think that if someone is not willing to have sex by that time, there is something wrong with the person.)

[ocnjgirl]

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

the trend produce kids having kids then forcing others to pay for them. liberals don't get how unfair that is. In fact, I don't think they much care about consequences to others in cases like "under age sex". Stealing from others that do what they are supposed to be doing doesn't really come into play in their thinking.

Please don't use political terms here, ok? Read TOS. please. The sexual revolution began with the advent of the birth control pill, so no, it didn't directly cause kids to start having kids. It started because for the first time in history women were able to control whether they had children or not, and it freed us. Some of the ramifications of that were a breakdown of the family, which DID lead IMO to kids having kids (no dad at home) but that is not even primarily due to the sexual revolution but many, many factors, primarily women's increasing ability to support themselves, loss of jobs and "white flight" from the cities in favor of suburbs, leaving the poor behind to preside over financial ghost towns with no jobs. The Vietnam war started the "free love" "make love not war" eras, but again that was more a rebellion against authority due to the war than any real statement on sexual mores and values.

It is ridiculous IMO to think you can pull one facet out of a decade of such extraordinary societal change as happened in the 60's and blame it on something as immense as poverty cycles and kids raised by kids.

Btw for OP, there are plenty of women who wait for the right guy. Go over to relationships and see them get battered about by the angry men who bought them dinner and didn't get a return on their "investment".

[mordant]

I grew up originally in a conservative religious tradition and one of the things I miss about it is that it made roles and expectations and norms very clear, particularly during courtship. When I was a young man, it was understood that (for example) you opened doors for women, and never made sexual advances until after marriage. This is arguably unrealistic but at least nothing is left to guess about. In the wider world, you never know if you're going to delight or offend a woman by being gallant or by not making sexual advances.

On the other hand in my advancing age I have gotten to the point where I don't much give a fig what people, including women, think. I just be myself and let the chips fall where they will. People are generally fickle and feckless and change their minds on a whim anyway, so I don't have much in the way of expectations to begin with. The bottom line is that your date or marriage partner, pretty much regardless of gender, will want sex except when they don't, and will think your particular tastes and needs in that area of life are fine except when they think it's not fine. I have pretty much given up seeing patterns there, I just roll with the punches.

But when you're young and inexperienced it's nice to have guidance and rules to work with. I wouldn't want to go through adolescence and young adulthood today; it was enough of a trial in the 1970s. Now on top of everything else you can't even be sure if a woman is into MEN, much less you. I'm entirely in favor of gay rights but you have to admit it is another complication in the mix even for heterosexuals.

The good news is that there ARE no "good old days". There are just familiar old days. People have always had strong sex drives, even when they strongly repressed them. People have always explored limits even when they were clear. People have always had neuroses and hangups and hot buttons even when they used to paper it over and give the appearance of making nice. In some ways the present day is better because people are more "real" and honest and straightforward.

[imagineAA]

OP, thanks for the clarification that this concern is regarding you finding a compatible person to date. That sounds totally different than being judgey about others.

Perhaps put this personal preference on dating site profiles and social networking, in some kind of tactful way. Then you will hopefully attract a more compatible person in the 1st place.

There was a guy on this forum that complained he only met chicks who wanted him for his body and money. Yet his dating profile pic was a muscled photo of him standing by an expensive car.

[SuperSoul]

Originally Posted by StarPaladin

Does anyone else miss the loss of pre-Sexual Revolution ideals and norms about physical intimacy? Personally, I am not a fan of contemporary trends, although I guess it's way too late to put that genie back in the bottle at all...

Yes, I do. I miss the innocence on media too. I realize that some of that ignorance was bad, but some was good - more pure and emotion was celebrated whereas now it seems more "corny." Very few films will show a couple waiting to have sex - most of the time it's right after the 1st kiss, thereby missing out on the courting romance. Bad examples and no wonder many hop from relationship to relationship.

Originally Posted by imagineAA

On the other hand, the last few generations have made positive advances. Society is starting to accept the fact that many species of animals, including humans, have homosexuality as a normal, natural behavior. We shouldn't go back to pretending it's not, and taking away people's rights for being who they were born to be.

You're mistaken, but you're not the only one. Animals eat their young, so should humans? Babies are not born with any sexual urges. Babies are born with brains that are only 25% developed, so they can adapt to environmental influences. Sexuality is learned behavior.

I think that the homosexual movement has really pushed things over the edge - and although what people do behind closed doors is their business - lately, they make it everyone else's business. If you research a little, you realize that systematic mind control was conducted (see book: "After the Ball") - where society (who previously was less accepting or at least neutral of homosexuality) was indoctrinated to believe that homosexuality was "natural" and happy/gay - good when statistically it proves to be harmful - STDs, AIDS/HIV and mental illness - according to US CDC - and obviously anal-sex has risks of anal fissures, anal cancer, colon rupture and bacterial infection. But no, people ignore this as well as they ignore the fact that children need a mom and dad - both moms and dads are important. 2 dads are not the same, nor are 2 moms. But of course many people fall for the mind-control and ignore facts - even to the detriment of others, like children. They were subject to careful and calculated mind-control which is why many - even on this forum - have followed along in calling any objectors, "homophobes" or "bigots" just for acknowledging human reproduction and undeniable, but inconvenient facts.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

You're mistaken, but you're not the only one. Animals eat their young, so should humans?

That is not the point people are making when they point out the prevalence of homosexuality in nature. What they are doing is merely rebutting the "Homosexuality is not natural" canard.

And the rebuttal of that nonsense is two-fold. The first is to point out that it actually IS natural so the assertion is false.

The second is to point out that "natural" is not a synonym for ethical or moral in the first place. We do many things natural that are not good. We do many things not natural that are.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

Babies are not born with any sexual urges. Babies are born with brains that are only 25% developed, so they can adapt to environmental influences.

As usual when you start talking science, you are simply making it up as you go along.

Firstly you have trotted out this "only 25% developed" a few times before but you have RUN AWAY every time when I ask you what you think it even means. Actually babies are born with brains in many ways MORE developed and interconnected than ours and what actually happens during "development" is a pruning and roll back of those connections.

So not only do you not appear to know what this even means, you do not even appear to know how it applies to the subject.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

Sexuality is learned behavior.

Just because sexuality is not "turned on" at an early stage, does not automatically mean it must therefore be a "learned behavior". You are simply asserting that out of nowhere. Sexuality is in many ways innate and ingrained. It is only "activated" later in life by the later production of certain hormones and processes.

Your nonsense is just the usual narrative sold by anti-homosexuals who want to sell the idea that homosexuals are only homosexual because of either choice, upbringing, or both. You have no evidence for such a thing AT ALL however.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

I think that the homosexual movement has really pushed things over the edge - and although what people do behind closed doors is their business - lately, they make it everyone else's business.

Except no they do not. You simply made that up. All they have done "lately" is fight for equal rights and access to the institution of marriage. But their obtaining the right to marry does not make me privy to what they do "behind closed doors" any more than YOUR getting married makes me privy to what YOU do "behind closed doors".

Marriage does not give anyone a look behind your closed doors. So drop the nonsense narrative that somehow it magically does for homosexuals. I am no more (or less) privy to the space behind their doors than I ever was 20 years ago. And, patently and demonstrably, nor are you.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

If you research a little, you realize that systematic mind control was conducted

I knew you could not get through an anti-homosexuality rant without SOME recourse to conspiracy theory.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

when statistically it proves to be harmful - STDs, AIDS/HIV and mental illness - according to US CDC

Except the statistics show no such thing. YOU distort the statistics, get called on it, run away, then wait a few weeks before throwing out the EXACT SAME rebutted statistical fallacies all over again as if no one ever corrected you.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

obviously anal-sex has risks of anal fissures, anal cancer, colon rupture and bacterial infection.

Another trope you have been rebutted on innumerable times. But as usual you just run away, wait awhile, and do it again. The simple fact however is that anal sex != homosexuality. Stop pretending like the two are the same things. And stop ignoring reality. Because in reality the FACTS that you dodge and ignore and retreat from are:

1) Anal sex is much more of a minority practice in the homosexual community than you pretend.
2) It is actually much more prevelant in the heterosexual community.
3) Many homosexuals, especially lesbians, do not engage in it AT ALL.
4) Homosexuality and the subgroup "MSM" are not the same thing, but you DESPERATELY keep pretending they are.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

But no, people ignore this

Rebutting your fantasies is not the same as ignoring them. The only one ignoring anything here is you. You. Only you. Just you. You as well. And you. You simply ignore EVERY rebuttal of your nonsense. Usually by running away, laying low awhile, and then finding a new thread you can pop up in selling the same fallacies again.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

as well as they ignore the fact that children need a mom and dad - both moms and dads are important.

Except you have made that nonsense up as well. As the WEALTH of perfectly healthy people brought up in single parent environments can attest to.

And the simple fact is that I have leveled a challenge against you NUMEROUS times in the past and you have simply run away every time. So here it is again:

LIST all the things children actually need in their upbringing. Make a list for us. You will find things on it like "security" and "education" and "feeding" and "protection" and "comfort" and so on and so on.

Then point to the things on that list that are precluded from one gender providing the child, that the other gender can.

When you FAIL to do so, you can lay low again until you find a new thread to retreat to.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

calling any objectors, "homophobes" or "bigots" just for acknowledging human reproduction and undeniable, but inconvenient facts.

But the only one ignoring inconvenient facts here is you.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by StarPaladin

Does anyone else miss the loss of pre-Sexual Revolution ideals and norms about physical intimacy? Personally, I am not a fan of contemporary trends, although I guess it's way too late to put that genie back in the bottle at all...

Well that is nothing if not vague. WHAT ideals are you referring to specifically? I can think of none I particularly miss, but if you could be clearer as to what you are referring to then perhaps a reply is possible.

Originally Posted by StarPaladin

I guess it would just be nice that if instead of society treating physical intimacy so casually like it does today (i.e., things like FWB, ONS, and solely casual intimacy), people were to think of intimacy as a more sacred, rarer, and very special experience that is intended with someone that that you truly love, and also hopefully intend to marry.

I do not see that those ideals have been lost, just augmented. People realize now that sex does not have to be JUST for marriage and romance. That there are several tiers of exploration and interest to be explored. That sex can be for many things.

But just because those things have been ADDED to the experience I do not see that the old ideals are lost and do not also exist in parallel. I am just as capable of having lustful physical only sex today, as I am to have deep intimate and romantic sex tomorrow. One does not preclude the other.

What I think we have lost is not "ideals" therefore. But nonsense narratives that sex is only "for" one thing have been corrected. Now we see sexuality as something that can, and maybe even should, be explored at multiple levels.

[Taiko]

Originally Posted by whocares811

I am not a hypocrite, as I am 63 and had several partners who were not my husband in my past (although not while married). However, that being said, I do think there is WAY too much "easy sex" today. In addition to all the other problems caused by casual sex, I think the lack of courtship also lessens romance, and I think that is sad. (I am appalled when I read threads with the general consensus being that if someone is not willing to have sex by the third or fourth meeting, that person should be "dropped". It just seems to me that most people under 40 think that if someone is not willing to have sex by that time, there is something wrong with the person.)

I think at 63 you are a generation too young to be part of the back in the day before society changed class. I would go back at least as far as those who became sexual active during the 1940s

[Phoenix2017]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Well that is nothing if not vague. WHAT ideals are you referring to specifically? I can think of none I particularly miss, but if you could be clearer as to what you are referring to then perhaps a reply is possible.

I guess I just wish there a larger pool of adult single women available today who were much more socially conservative (not meant in a political way) about human intercourse. For example, intercourse outside of marriage used to formerly be taboo or near-taboo before the Sexual Revolution. I'm not saying that non-married people sleeping with other non-married people never happened before the Sexual Revolution, just that I would imagine it was far less common and not the universal norm that it is today. To be 100% honest, as an adult man who has never slept with anyone thus far in life myself, it would be nice to find an adult woman with zero experience with full intimacy as well, who was also waiting for a marriage commitment -- a virgin and a blank slate in the intimate sense, if you will. Unrealistic in this day and age I know and most likely impossible to find, but then again to a certain extent, the heart wants what it wants lol.

I do not see that those ideals have been lost, just augmented. People realize now that sex does not have to be JUST for marriage and romance. That there are several tiers of exploration and interest to be explored. That sex can be for many things.

But just because those things have been ADDED to the experience I do not see that the old ideals are lost and do not also exist in parallel. I am just as capable of having lustful physical only sex today, as I am to have deep intimate and romantic sex tomorrow. One does not preclude the other.

What I think we have lost is not "ideals" therefore. But nonsense narratives that sex is only "for" one thing have been corrected. Now we see sexuality as something that can, and maybe even should, be explored at multiple levels.

The only thing is that with the advancement of the new, augmented views norms on intimacy, the older, Pre-Sexual Revolution order on the subject is virtually extinct, or near-extinct. Again to briefly reiterate, the idea of an adult woman with no intimate experience (i.e., someone who may have perhaps explored to a limited degree but also importantly "not gone all the way") is impossible or almost impossible to find.

[Vision67]

Go back 200 years. People became sexually mature and married by about age 16. Life was short and brutal. People had as many kids as survived and the human lifespan was about 35 years. Most people were uneducated, churches were mandatory, life was simple.

Present day: People become sexually mature earlier and they need to be well educated to make a decent living. Many continue in school beyond age 30. Marriage is much later, now about age 30.

To expect them to be in constant denial of sexual urges from age 13 to 30 is not realistic.