{"id":3236,"date":"2024-05-27T06:53:03","date_gmt":"2024-05-26T21:23:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/leehopkins.com\/?p=3236"},"modified":"2024-05-27T11:24:26","modified_gmt":"2024-05-27T01:54:26","slug":"the-sexual-revolutions-broken-promise-how-women-lost-out-but-men-are-very-happy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/leehopkins.com\/vi\/the-sexual-revolutions-broken-promise-how-women-lost-out-but-men-are-very-happy\/","title":{"rendered":"The Sexual Revolution\u2019s broken promise: How women lost out but men are VERY happy"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"
The feminists got it wrong. The sexual revolution has made things worse for women, but better for men<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

My first degree was in fact a joint Honours: Applied Psychology & Sociology. I took a particular shine to Social Psychology, but I did enjoy my Sociology lectures and got better marks in my Soc assignments than my Psych assignments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I watched the author of this book on a YT video where, for two hours, the host and she talked about the sexual environment for women these days\u2014young women, middle-aged and the elderly, but mostly the young, child-bearing aged women because they are the ones most at risk of being exploited. It was only near the end of the video that her book came up, meaning that the discussion that she and her intellectually equal male had was a genuine to and fro about the research and the findings, not a self-serving sales pitch. It was definitely grounded in feminist conflict, which in the mid 1990s England was not something we talked about; it was something we shoved under the pillow and forgot about as best we could.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perry is a feminist that comes from the middle ground, criticising many (but not all) other feminists, especially the very vocal feminists, as well as acknowledging the history of the two sexes and the patriarchal system that used to exist before the sexual revolution in the 1960s. Patriarchy is still here, of course\u2014some male bosses still ask for a blow job in exchange for a promotion, some male landlords still offer no-rent accomodation in exchange for sex on demand, and so on. Men are still far more likely to have excessively high desire for sex and violence, women are still far more likely to have excessively low desire for sex and violence, men are phenomenally more likely to rape and murder, women are phenomenally less likely to rape and murder (for example, women are unable to strangle and kill a man by putting her hands around his neck [she doesn\u2019t have the physical strength to hurt him], whilst men are totally able to do this; etc.).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Which makes monogamous marriage so interesting, because when men get married\u2014and *particularly* help make children and raise them\u2014their testosterone goes down. A lot. Endless amounts of research shows that a stable, monogamous marriage (more so \u2018straight\u2019 than \u2018gay\u2019) is great for not only the couple and their happiness, but *very* beneficial for the children, who grow up happier and healthier having a dad around. Children who grow up without the influence of a dad\/male have lower levels of happiness, health, and achievement\u2014whether academic, relationship, or any other factor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The downside of that is that stepdads are 40x more likely to kill their step child, or molest\/rape them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perry\u2019s exploration of the feminists\u2019 double standards around sex work is riveting and disturbing in equal measure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Feminists have held differing views on sex work, with some advocating for its abolition and others supporting decriminalization. The key double standard highlighted is that while radical feminists argue sex work reinforces the objectification of women and should be abolished, they do not make the same argument about care work which also perpetuates traditional gender roles of women as caregivers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Radical feminists like Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin view prostitution as a form of violence against women stemming from patriarchal oppression. They contend that true consent is impossible in an unequal society, so all sex work is inherently exploitative. However, this stance has been criticised for denying agency to sex workers and perpetuating the \u201cwhore stigma\u201d by deeming sex work immoral.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In contrast, other feminists argue that decriminalising sex work reduces harm to sex workers and challenges patriarchal norms around female sexuality. They contend the abolitionist position is paternalistic, ignoring sex workers\u2019 voices and perpetuating the very \u201ccult of female modesty\u201d it claims to dismantle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The double standard lies in radical feminists\u2019 differing treatment of sex work versus care work, both of which can be seen as reinforcing traditional gender roles. While they condemn sex work as objectifying women, they do not advocate abolishing care work despite its links to viewing women primarily as caregivers. This inconsistency has been criticised as moralistic and disrespectful towards sex workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sex workers are vastly made up of young women from lower socio-economic areas who turn to sex work to pay the bills, feed their children, and so on. But the workers from these backgrounds are held by society, and feminists, in vastly different ways than beautiful, wealthy, university-educated young women who earn thousands of dollars per hour\/night\/weekend\/week being in the company of rich, powerful men. Whether the women have sex with the men is usually not the point\u2014they are there so the man can show off his trophy and so, subtly, say to other men \u2018look what I can score, I\u2019m hot shit y\u2019all\u2019. If the women can hold their own at a dinner party and add to the conversation, rather than being a mute piece of eye candy, she is additional points for the man.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The sex workers from the lower socio-economic environments, and the foreigners and refugees, are far more likely to suffer intense pain from either rough sex or a client being violent in other ways. The reports suggest that this doesn\u2019t happen so much with girls\/women from the top end of the sex worker scale. If there is rough sex, it is negotiated beforehand, there are safe words in place and respected, and she will insist on being paid handsomely for the act. Women from the lower echelons will put up with just about any treatment because they need the money. Women at the upper end will bring to a halt anything they con\u2019t consent to or think is degrading. She will often fly home or walk away from the business if she feels unsafe or devalued. She doesn\u2019t need the money as much as the other women and so has more control over what happens to her body and her mind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sex workers from the lower end of the scale spend a lot of time while they are working telling friends and family\u2014and any journalist who will listen\u2014that they are having a great time and they are expressing their agency. When they leave the profession (either because they have passed their \u2018use by\u2019 date or they are too psychologically damaged to be able to attract and keep clients), the rose coloured glasses eventually fall off and they realise how scarred and damaged (think PTSD) they are as a result of their work. Quite a few then join anti-sex work groups, anti-decriminalisation groups, sex worker support groups, and so on. Many a famous porn star has, once their career in front of the cameras. is over, written autobiographies scathing of the porn industry and sex work in general. Many go into graphic detail about the various rips, tears, massive internal damage, and so on, that sex work inflicted on them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Linda Lovelace was the star of the incredibly successful 70s porn movie Deep Throat<\/em>. In her autobiography, she spilled the beans on what actually happened on set. It was never the \u2018only\u2019 30-45 minutes of being on set that she was promised it would be. Very often it was 7-10 gruelling hours of being penetrated over and over again, day after day after day. Her work performing the act from which the movie got its name was actually performed with little to no preparation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to sources, Linda Lovelace (real name Linda Boreman) says she was coerced and sexually assaulted during the production, and that the film is considered genuine rape pornography by Lovelace herself. A Wikipedia article <\/a> states that \u201cLovelace later wrote that she was coerced and sexually assaulted during the production, and that the film is genuine rape pornography.\u201d This directly contradicts the claim in a Reddit post <\/a> that she was \u201cdedicated to prepare for her role.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Wall Street Journal article <\/a> also notes that \u201cThough it was touted as a celebration of female sexuality, \u2018Deep Throat<\/em>\u2018 can be seen as a study in the male control of female sexuality.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While actress Amanda Seyfried did watch pornography to prepare for playing Lovelace in a 2013 biopic <\/a>, there is no evidence that the real Linda Lovelace willingly prepared or trained for Deep Throat<\/em> in any way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But back to Perry and her book. Perry\u2019s thoughts are science-based, facts-driven from academic research. It\u2019s not based on an agenda, or either feminist or conservative ideology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Model<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Perry also reflects that in the early 1994 a large billboard over a major road in London with supermodel Eva Herzigov\u00e1 looking down at her breasts enclosed in a padded bra and the words, \u2018Hello boys\u2019 writ large and proud across the billboard caused accidents on the road and outcries in the press and parliament. I was working in London in 1994 and saw the billboard many times; accidents really did happen on the road by the billboard. Men ran into the car in front of them, crossed into the other lane, and so on; the billboard did indeed cause a stir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The popularity of Wonderbras surged dramatically following the launch of this campaign. The \u201cHello Boys\u201d ad is credited with transforming Wonderbra from a relatively niche product into a global phenomenon. The campaign was a massive PR success, generating extensive media coverage and public attention. It was reported that the campaign provided $50 million worth of free publicity for a $25 million product line. The ad was so impactful that it was voted the greatest poster of all time in a 2011 poll. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the long term, the success of the \u201cHello Boys\u201d campaign had a lasting effect on the Wonderbra brand. It not only boosted sales significantly at the time but also cemented Wonderbra\u2019s place in advertising history. The campaign\u2019s legacy continued to influence the brand\u2019s marketing strategies, as seen in subsequent revivals and modern twists on the original concept, such as the \u201cHello Me\u201d campaign launched in 2018, which aimed to reposition the brand around female self-empowerment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fast-forward to 2024 and you can walk down any shopping centre or road and you will notice that the majority of the images are of beautiful young women in lingerie. Women\u2014and I know this will come as a shock to many <\/sarcasm>\u2014have been hyper-sexualised, and girls as young as 13 are very intimidated by the new reality. Perry then goes on to talk about why the most strident feminists are happy to, and indeed, encourage this. And how there are little or no places or media where young girls can go for advice. Except Perry lets us in on a secret for these girls and very young women kept for the final chapter\u2014listen to your Mum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s some examples of what magazines supposedly for the empowerment of women are actually writing (article titles):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Cosmopolitan Magazine<\/strong>:\n