A telling critique of the sexual revolution of the 1960s is that it mainly benefited heterosexual men,
When birds were free to spread it about there was lots more being spread about. Thus committment from men was not necessary before getting nookie. True, birds got a choice of nookie too. But that general societal insistence that men choose one and that’s that disappeared – so, fewer men did.
“The allegations against Sullivan, which he angrily denies, are that he “interviewed” young women at his mansion in Essex and demanded sex in return for furthering their careers as “glamour models”. The women’s stories were horrible.”
Because they didn’t get what they wanted?
I’m not sure it benefitted anyone.
Depends what you mean by ‘the sexual revolution’. Efficient birth control, more sexual pleasure and greater toleration of homosexuality are not bad per se, while whinging femiloons, trannies, gay exhibitionists, etc are grim…
I keep seeing a trailer for a TV show about gay exhibitionists featuring a load of flamboyant, brightly coloured people with piercings posturing and telling us how proud they are about being themselves and all that stuff. I don’t really have a problem with the gay flamboyance really, you do you, whatever you like. The thought that actually crossed my mind after the umpteenth showing was, who cares? Nobody effing cares, we’re happy that you can be all gay and flamboyant without feeling oppressed, beyond that nobody gives a toss.
I don’t really have a problem with the gay flamboyance really
I do, when it amounts to manipulative, passive aggressive rubbing our noses in “diversity”. Let ’em be as flamboyant as they like in their gay bars but they can keep their fucking flags to themselves. I use to like rainbows; they’re now spoilt forever.
…
.
Women traded on it. And to be fair, why not? Why is showing your tits to someone who will pay to see them any different to using your muscles to move stuff someone will pay you to move? Or – for that matter – your fingers to type stuff someone will pay you to type?
The removal of modesty, encouraged by the left did that, though porn has been around since cave paintings because men like to look at naked women, and women like to give men boners.
That’s not the big shift. It’s the falling price of photography, printing and distribution.
In 1890, porn was expensive. It cost about £5-10 for a single postcard in today’s money. At which price, just go see some strippers. Over time it fell with technology, while strippers didn’t. It’s a Baumol problem. You still had to pay lots of money for a girl to get her kit off, but the costs of photography, printing distribution fell.
Around the mid-1960s, you have the price falling and colour printing and porn just adds up better than strippers and they go into decline.
The big disappointment I found with the sexually permissive 60’s was being born in the late 50’s. I lived through it but didn’t get to enjoy all those birds spreading it around.
I missed out too, I was born early 70s so STDs were more of thing. Golden Era I guess?
Twice – missed the 60s, and a bit too young to properly benefit from the brief 80s excesses as well.
Did our best in the 90s, but that didn’t last long before the neo-Puritans got going.
Ah, the ’80s…
Don’t fret, I was born 10 years earlier than you and still didn’t get any.
I was born too soon (1938) the reap the full benefit and also spent a significant chunk of the 60s on Her Majesty’s Service overseas. Can’t complain too much though, overall I have a very reasonable body count…
A man of your age using ‘body count’ in that manner, for shame!
License to Shag, baby. Yeah!
If he was in the military on overseas service, ‘body count’ could have different meanings.
There was a time, not so long ago, when female breasts appeared daily in some national newspapers
Bring back tits.
Is the grauniad seriously trying to tell us that page 3 was a bad thing?
I think it was only this century that they had to be 18.
Maria Whittaker, or was it Sam Fox, was 16 when the Sun made her a Page 3 girl. Even The Times showed a naked girl (I think her name was Vivian Neves) in an article, though understand she was older than 18.
Real tits have never been tried.
There was a time, not so long ago, when female breasts appeared daily in some national newspapers
But now the ractionary partiarchial far-right gammon racist anti-feminist bigots have banned women having the freedom to do what they like with their bodies.