← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust

Thread 220

Thread ID: 220 | Posts: 27 | Started: 2002-03-21

Wayback Archive

Faust [OP]

2002-03-21 23:40 | User Profile

Men are the losers of the sexual revolution

Paul Craig Roberts September 2, 2001

Men are the losers of the sexual revolution

Columnist Jeffrey Hart recently argued that women were the losers of the sexual revolution. He has a point. By making themselves available outside of marriage, women have undermined the institution of marriage. The problem with Hart's analysis is that he assumes that men want sex and women want marriage. But what if men want marriage, too? Aren't they also losers of the sexual revolution?

Men do want marriage. There is no comfort in a different woman every night. Moreover, that approach to sex might produce offspring, but not a lifetime relationship with sons, daughters and grandchildren.

Because of the emphasis on the sexual benefits to men of the sexual revolution, many people blame men for the revolution. But, of course, it wasn't men who created the sexual revolution.

The sexual revolution was a happening. Many men were surprised at the sudden availability of young women. I was a university professor during the 1960s. I remember the complaints of male students that "nice girls are ruining themselves."

Sex became casual. It no longer was proceeded by a long period of dating, going steady or being "pinned." Sex became a date activity like going to a movie. Eventually with the present-day "hook-up," sex was divorced from dating altogether.

People who study the sexual revolution blame it on feminists. No doubt feminist intellectual arguments in favor of female promiscuity played a role, but I doubt a significant percentage of the suddenly available young women were being guided by the intellectual musings of feminists.

I don't know why the sexual revolution occurred. But I do know that many young men were of two minds about it. It was a helpful development for raging harmones, but it made it difficult for a guy to get a girl of his own, someone special to him.

Eventually, guys may get over their reluctance to enter into long-term relationships with women who have been in bed with their friends or friends of their friends. When I ask men I know who are in their 30s and 40s why they have not married, they do not answer that female promiscuity makes it unnecessary. They say that they are reluctant to propose to easy women.

One man put it this way: "I would be uncomfortable in social gatherings where 15 percent of the people had been in bed with my wife."

The sexual revolution has provided men with easy sex, but not with families and wives who don't walk out on them. Feminists may have destroyed the chastity of women, but they certainly destroyed the security of marriage.

Today it makes no sense for a man to marry even if sex were unavailable from "hook-ups." The reason is the extreme risk that marriage today imposes on husbands. A wife can throw her husband out of his house, take his children and half or more of his income without having to have a real reason for the financial and emotional ruin she brings to her husband.

We hear a lot about successful middle-aged men who leave their wives for younger "trophy" wives. But most divorces are initiated by women and are involuntary divorces from the husbands' standpoints.

Back when marriages were real, solid grounds were required for divorce. Moreover, divorce was not designed to financially ruin men. Today divorce proceedings treat husbands and fathers as criminals in the dock. If a husband fights over custody of children or visitation rights, the wife simply tells the police that he has threatened her and gets a restraining order, or she reports him to Child Protective Services as a child abuser.

A man who marries today is either ignorant of the risks, has great confidence in his choice of mate or is a fool.

Restoring marriage is a much larger job than putting the sex genie back in the bottle and confining sex to the marriage bed. The institution of marriage has to be fixed. Real grounds have to be required for divorce. Divorce proceedings must treat men equably and not as convicted felons.

There is little chance of this happening. The forces assaulting the family are too strong. Leadership is rare, and when it arises it is spurned, as evidenced by Stephen Baskerville's recent expulsion from the Virginia Triennial Child Support Guideline Review Panel for criticizing the divorce industry's vendetta against fathers.

Contrary to Jeffrey Hart, men are the real losers of the sexual revolution.

©2001 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

url: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulcraigroberts/pcr20010902.shtml

van helsing

2002-03-22 03:01 | User Profile

I havent read that Hart piece he refers to, but bad men certainly did not lose the sexual revolution.

Bad men won it; bad men also made it happen. Any man who was looking for a way, an excuse, to get out of his manly obligation without taking the blame for doing so, has now got a legal out.

Everyone else lost. Women did but they have been trained to not realize that their empty feeling is a loss. Good men lost because some women were looking for the same 'excuse'. And children pay for the sins of their parents.

Frederick William I

2002-05-14 21:36 | User Profile

**Quote** (Faust @ Mar. 21 2002,17:40)

Columnist Jeffrey Hart recently argued that women were the losers of the sexual revolution. He has a point. By making themselves available outside of marriage, women have undermined the institution of marriage. The problem with Hart's analysis is that he assumes that men want sex and women want marriage. But what if men want marriage, too? Aren't they also losers of the sexual revolution?** I've been meaning to get back to this thread for a while.  The methodology Roberts uses is good, but the overall tendency of these discussions to me show the typical weakness of these kinds of discussions.  They don't learn from others, don't draw firm conclusions, and sort of beat around the Bush (no pun intended - OK so it was   ) Roberts is just sort of descriptive.  There actually have been some more extensive discussions recently, in terms of what men and women do want, from the sociobiological and evolutionary psychology perspectives. **Quote** Men do want marriage. There is no comfort in a different woman every night. Moreover, that approach to sex might produce offspring, but not a lifetime relationship with sons, daughters and grandchildren. Because of the emphasis on the sexual benefits to men of the sexual revolution, many people blame men for the revolution.** Even from a the typical NR-conservative descriptive point of view, I've read, better analyses.  A NR article quite some time put it in economic terms who the winners and losers of the sexual revolution were.  It showed a little of an early evolutionary psychology perspective. Their conclusions were more nuanced.  The big winners are rich men and poor women.  The losers were poor men and rich women. **Quote** But, of course, it wasn't men who created the sexual revolution. The sexual revolution was a happening. ** Duh right.  It **just happened**.  One day in the sixties we just woke up and *viola* things were different. Typical clueless/gutless mainstream conservative. (usually both).  He has no inclination to really tackle the roots of this monumental change in societies attitudes, and the origin of the subversion of the moral standards and cohesiveness of society.   Unlike these guys, Pat Buchanan at least has the courage to name names.  People like Hollywood, Freud, Luckacs, and the Frankfurt School. But no, that might be resented by some.  Let's just say that one day the Smiths, Murphy's and Cefilli's of the word miraculously woke up with different standards and modes of behavior, i.e. it just "happened" (Kevin MacDonald has an excellent description of the fundamental origins and implications of the "sexual revolution" and other social phenomena of the sixties of course in Culture of Critique.  But don't ever expect any of these guys to be caught quoting him.) --- ### Happy Hacker *2002-05-14 23:48* | [User Profile](/od/user/118) **Quote** (Faust @ Mar. 21 2002,17:40) I don't know why the sexual revolution occurred.** The Sexual Revolution occurred because modern technology, created by white men, enabled it.  Sinful humans are constantly at war with reality and technology and prosperity allows us to afford sinful indulgences such as the Sexual Revolution. Before the birth-control pill and antibiotics, sleeping around meant big disaster including poverty and death.   Before modern technology, being a mother was more than a full-time job, including nursing leaving the man out, and working outside the home was physically demanding leaving women out. As for the winners and losers of the Sexual Revolution.  Losers include the children who growup without falthers and the taxpayers who are forced to subsidize destructive lifestyles. Other losers are those good men and women looking for pure spouses.  And, of course, other losers are the victims of all the broken marriages and the double screwing men get from the courts. --- ### van helsing *2002-05-14 23:55* | [User Profile](/od/user/48) i tend to think that technology is usually neutral. in this case, the confluence of technology with a corrupt elite, made r v w the law of the land. anyone got demographics on who abortionists are? abortion was endemic in big cities in the mid-late 1800s too... ////////////// i tend to wonder if abortion is just another way for amalekites to be kept from becoming a problem to be dealt with later... --- ### Frederick William I *2002-05-15 00:32* | [User Profile](/od/user/58) **Quote** (Happy Hacker @ May 14 2002,18:48)   The Sexual Revolution occurred because modern technology, created by white men, enabled it.  Sinful humans are constantly at war with reality and technology and prosperity allows us to afford sinful indulgences such as the Sexual Revolution.** I tend to agree with Van Helsing on the issue of technology.  All sorts of technological innovations have ben blamed for the sexual revolution, from the rumble seat and drive-in movie theater to the condom and pill.  This strikes me as sort of like the peaceniks who say the gun is responsible for violence or the bomb and military organizations for warfare. What is fundamentally significant about "the sexual revolution" from a societal standpoint, is not behavioral, but moral, relating to society's beliefs about what is right and wrong.  This is more significant.  And this shift MacDonald concincingly atrributes to the mileau of the Frankfurt School and its type of thought and culture. Passages such as this are illuminating.   **Quote** Herbert Marcuse, a countercultural guru of the 1960's, was a member of the first generation of the Frankfurt School, whose activities are discussed extensively in chapter 5 (of Culture of Critique).  In *Eros and Civilization* Marcuse accepts Freuds theory that Western culture is pathogenic as a result of suppression of sexual urges, paying homage to Freud, who "recognized the work of repression in the highest values of Western civilization - which presuppose and perpetuate unfreedom and suffering....... Like Marcuse (Erich) Fromm was a member of the first generation of the Frankfurt School. A cornerstone of this approach is to view contemporary society as pathogenic and the development of socialism as ushering in a new era of loving human relationships.  These writer's were highly influential:** An extensive review folows showing very convincingly that these attitudes that "if only society would cease attempting to control sexuality, all would be well" were basically at the substance of the 60's "sexual revolution", which in its significant sense was one of social mores. --- ### van helsing *2002-05-15 01:07* | [User Profile](/od/user/48) yup. technology also brought us the ultrasound. --- ### Happy Hacker *2002-05-15 05:30* | [User Profile](/od/user/118) **Quote** (van helsing @ May 14 2002,18:55) i tend to think that technology is usually neutral.** I didn't think my argument was that unclear.  I'm not blaming technology as being a corrupting force. I don't know what you folks think... that after thousands of years it was just a total fluke that the Sexual Revolution occured in the 20th century. --- ### amundsen *2002-05-15 10:35* | [User Profile](/od/user/5) **Quote** (Happy Hacker @ May 15 2002,02:30) I don't know what you folks think... that after thousands of years it was just a total fluke that the Sexual Revolution occured in the 20th century.** Didn't the Romans also have a lapse in sexual mores by the time of the Empire?  Didn't Augustus actually try to bring back some of their old sexual values?  Heck he had to exile his own daughter, who it seems was a rebellious whore.   When did queerness become populare, was it always?  I know many of the conservative elders lamented how the women had lost their femininity and virtue.  So I'm wondering was their a sexual revolution in Rome? --- ### Polichinello *2002-05-15 15:57* | [User Profile](/od/user/91) **Quote** (amundsen @ May 15 2002,05:35) Didn't the Romans also have a lapse in sexual mores by the time of the Empire?  Didn't Augustus actually try to bring back some of their old sexual values?  Heck he had to exile his own daughter, who it seems was a rebellious whore.   When did queerness become populare, was it always?  I know many of the conservative elders lamented how the women had lost their femininity and virtue.  So I'm wondering was their a sexual revolution in Rome?** There was, but it was more an upper echelon phenomenon mostly limited within Rome itself as well as some of the larger cities.  These people over a period of time found themselves loaded with lots of wealth as the older mores of the Republic collapsed.  All that tempation combined with a lack of a restraining ethic led to a predictable result. Augustus did try to enforce moral reforms, but while it's easy to destroy morals from the top, you really can't build them from there.  And, in fact, Augustus was no prize moralist himself as he conducted a few extra-marital affairs. Best, P --- ### Frederick William I *2002-05-15 17:55* | [User Profile](/od/user/58) **Quote** **Quote** (Polichinello @ May 15 2002,10:57) [quote=amundsen,May 15 2002,05:35]Didn't the Romans also have a lapse in sexual mores by the time of the Empire?  Didn't Augustus actually try to bring back some of their old sexual values?  Heck he had to exile his own daughter, who it seems was a rebellious whore.   When did queerness become populare, was it always?  I know many of the conservative elders lamented how the women had lost their femininity and virtue.  So I'm wondering was their a sexual revolution in Rome?** There was, but it was more an upper echelon phenomenon mostly limited within Rome itself as well as some of the larger cities.  These people over a period of time found themselves loaded with lots of wealth as the older mores of the Republic collapsed.  All that tempation combined with a lack of a restraining ethic led to a predictable result. Augustus did try to enforce moral reforms, but while it's easy to destroy morals from the top, you really can't build them from there.  And, in fact, Augustus was no prize moralist himself as he conducted a few extra-marital affairs. Best, P** The upper echelons of Rome certainly did have their decline and fall, but you are being very circumcribed if you limit the areas in which the Mediterranean world of antiquity's sexual devience to this small circumscribed group.  The perversions of the ancient pagan world were legendary, such that it is not teerribly uplifting to get into them in detail.  Any study of the time will be very insightful, if you can stomach it. Regarding homosexuality, I am surprised that amundsen is not aware of the greeks singular achievements in this field, which I think had an influence on the Romans also. --- ### Polichinello *2002-05-15 18:26* | [User Profile](/od/user/91) There were certainly perversions in the ancient world, but the question related more or less to Rome itself, which had begun with a rather solid outlook on the family and frowned on those who avoided marriage, even to the point of penalizing bachelors with taxes. The  poorer farmers in the Italian countryside couldn't exactly afford orgies, and thus they tended to keep to family practices for some time after Augustus due to necessity more than anything. Best, P --- ### mwdallas *2002-05-16 00:39* | [User Profile](/od/user/81) **Quote** What is fundamentally significant about "the sexual revolution" from a societal standpoint, is not behavioral, but moral, relating to society's beliefs about what is right and wrong.  This is more significant.  And this shift MacDonald concincingly atrributes to the mileau of the Frankfurt School and its type of thought and culture. ** And don't forget Freud -- and Dr. Ruth -- and others ad infinitum.  However, there is something to be said for the advent of The Pill as, at the least, a major catalyst. --- ### Frederick William I *2002-05-16 23:41* | [User Profile](/od/user/58) **Quote** (mwdallas @ May 15 2002,19:39) **Quote** What is fundamentally significant about "the sexual revolution" from a societal standpoint, is not behavioral, but moral, relating to society's beliefs about what is right and wrong.  This is more significant.  And this shift MacDonald concincingly attributes to the mileau of the Frankfurt School and its type of thought and culture. ** And don't forget Freud -- and Dr. Ruth -- and others ad infinitum.  However, there is something to be said for the advent of The Pill as, at the least, a major catalyst.** Dr. Freud, of course, is a key element of the Frankfurt School Critical Theory, as well as being deeply subversive in his own right per MacDonald.  Dr. Ruth of course, taking her seriously, is pretty fundamentally FS in her tendency, as is most of pop culture, once you get by her relaxed show-biz exterior. --- ### il ragno *2002-05-17 15:20* | [User Profile](/od/user/85) Roberts is right in a fundamental way that men are simply reluctant to discuss, I think. Easier to dispassionately trace 'root causes' and 'precursors' back to the Frankfurt School and/or the Roman Empire than to hew closer to the bone here. Nobody wants to marry a girl who's f***ed half the phone book. It degrades a 'husband' down to a 'life partner'. Sh*t, *dykes* have life-partners! I don't meet women in political clubs or through VNN singles listings (nor would I ever), nor does any man I know. You meet em through more mundane social channels and you pursue them based on *sexual attraction*. And if I had to be honest, I'd say that the hand-in-hand "sexual liberation" of women afforded by libertine social mores and the option of abortion PLUS the relentless social promotion of women (they are as much the beneficiaries of affirmative action as blacks) PLUS the equally-relentless cultural degrading of men and you end up with men trying not to think about where your wife or girlfriend has been, because they need the second income! And *these* days? If I was 21 again, I might be at my wits' end...the better-looking the woman, the greater the odds her 'rap sheet' includes a Jamaal or two. Usually....in the old days...the man who bragged about all the notches on his belt was lying, or sleeping with mutts and bar-whores, his braggadocio fueled by his longing for and jealousy of a happy, stable marriage. Today the woman who brags about her chasteness or her limited experience is usually lying but looking for a husband and playing the game that gets one. And so is the man who insists he married a virgin. *Everybody* loses in this revolution. Because it's only with approaching middle-age that you come to intensely value the qualities you're taught to lampoon & despise in youth: heroism, patria, tradition, modesty, chastity, true love. And you realize that to be an ex-whore is a world away from never having been one at all. --- ### Polichinello *2002-05-17 15:50* | [User Profile](/od/user/91) **Quote** (il ragno @ May 17 2002,10:20) Roberts is right in a fundamental way that men are simply reluctant to discuss, I think. Easier to dispassionately trace 'root causes' and 'precursors' back to the Frankfurt School and/or the Roman Empire than to hew closer to the bone here. Nobody wants to marry a girl who's f***ed half the phone book. It degrades a 'husband' down to a 'life partner'. Sh*t, *dykes* have life-partners!** Absolutely correct.  This is the problem. The Roman empire was just a comparison case, though, not a causal one. Best, P --- ### Faust *2002-05-17 16:30* | [User Profile](/od/user/60) The so-called "sexual revolution" is the worst crime of the Cultural Marxist and the Frankfurt School, et all. All the "planned parenthood" and "Sex Ed" Types should be locked up.   I do not think technology had much to do with it. The Romans had "birth-control", the technology is far from new. Roman "birth-control" technology was so good, it depopulated large areas of the Empire. "The perversions of the ancient pagan world were legendary" and now Christendom gone to the same fate. The white women with Afro/Mutts, I see most often look about 200+lbs. and are ugly. The Blacks like fat. It's the fat females that are often the worst whores. Lust and Gluttony go together? also see: The Truth about VD by Elizabeth Bennett: http://www.originaldissent.com/cgi-bin....1;t=272 --- ### Avalanche *2003-08-10 14:45* | [User Profile](/od/user/243) > **mwd: However, there is something to be said for the advent of The Pill as, at the least, a major catalyst. ** Hmmm, I'm not sure catalyst is the right word. It was certainly a 'permitter' -- that is, women and girls who had bought the F.S. propaganda found it a reliable and welcome "protection" as they acted out the dictates of their inculcated destructive program. "Good" girls, of which I was one, despite having participated in the 'sexual revolution' (to a small degree -- I WAS in college at the time!), were participating NOT because the Pill made it safer, but because it was the 'right' thing to do. The Pill merely made it less scary, less likely to have bad repercussions (we thought...) It was a function of brainwashing, not technology. Women/girls without access to the pill still participated in the "revolution" -- the pill was merely a 'nice-to-have,' not a necessary precursor. Besides, in any revolution, some are wounded -- the pill was merely a more reliable armor for the 'soldiers' in the destruction... --- ### Bardamu *2003-08-10 16:47* | [User Profile](/od/user/326) > *Originally posted by Faust@Mar 21 2002, 17:40 * **. Back when marriages were real, solid grounds were required for divorce. Moreover, divorce was not designed to financially ruin men. Today divorce proceedings treat husbands and fathers as criminals in the dock. If a husband fights over custody of children or visitation rights, the wife simply tells the police that he has threatened her and gets a restraining order, or she reports him to Child Protective Services as a child abuser. ** If the husband is nationalistic he better make sure his wife is too, because when divorce court comes around and he stands before Judge Kaganovitch ... One's spouse is a potential government informer these days. --- ### Bardamu *2003-08-10 16:53* | [User Profile](/od/user/326) The technological revolution, or more precisely the medical technology revolution, certainly plays a major part. Consider the Gay sexual revolution, prior to the outbreak of AIDS, gay men were flooding the local medical clinics with every imaginable STD. Had it not been for modern medicine, these fellows would have been dead meat, which they ended up being anyway after AIDS arrived on the scene. --- ### Hilaire Belloc *2003-08-10 20:49* | [User Profile](/od/user/438) I for one believe that technology did play a big part in the sexual revolution, but it was socio-political forces that started it and propelled it along. Technology rarely by itself changes anything, it is usually social forces that drive the real changes that exploit the technology available. This is especially true with the military, despite the techno-centric world-view of the Pentagon. The introduction of the gun may have revolutionized warfare, but it was social forces that made the effective use of the gun possible. When the gun was first introduced in the late Middle Ages, it was very crude and inaccurate. The common longbow was more effective. It was only untill the Renaisance was the gun able to play a bigger role. This was not because of the improved quality of guns, but because of the social factors influencing military leaders. The Renaisance was a time when Classical Greco-Roman ideals were being revived, including in the military. This lead to the revival of Greco-Roman formations for troops in combat. Yet it was this very style of formation that made it possible for the effective use of the guns of that time. So it wasn't technology alone, but social factors exploiting the available technology that made the most impact. I believe something similar happened with the sexual revolution, social factors were simply exploited the available technology to their own use. Even Pat Buchanan admits that much of why the Sexual Revolution came about was because so many of the Baby Boomer generation were pampered and spoiled by the their elders. The Pill was just the spark, but the gas was already in the air. --- ### naBaron *2003-08-11 13:31* | [User Profile](/od/user/271) > **The Renaisance was a time when Classical Greco-Roman ideals were being revived, including in the military. This lead to the revival of Greco-Roman formations for troops in combat. Yet it was this very style of formation that made it possible for the effective use of the guns of that time. So it wasn't technology alone, but social factors exploiting the available technology that made the most impact. ** Interesting. Thanks for the post. --- ### Hilaire Belloc *2003-08-11 15:09* | [User Profile](/od/user/438) > *Originally posted by naBaron@Aug 11 2003, 07:31 * ** Interesting. Thanks for the post. ** I good book to read for more information about this in military matters is the book "[url=http://books.cambridge.org/052180079X.htm]Dynamics of Military Revolutions 1300-2050[/url]". It examines the changes that occured in military matters and what caused them. Another book is [url=http://search.barnesandnoble.com/textbooks/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=0714646741]Masters of War: Classical Strategic Thought[/url] by Michael I. Handel. Basically like I said before, socio-political factors are the most revolutionary in history and technology only becomes apart of the change when the socio-political forces can exploit it to their advantage. Often technology is designed to further certain socio-political aims, very rarely(if ever) the other way around. I'm not anti-technology, but I do oppose techno-centric world-views, the blind worship of technology(like you see with futurists), and overreliance on technology in general. I agree with Heideggar that we must let ourselves become slaves to our inventions, which is becoming a problem for us in the modern world. I believe in simplicity in technology. --- ### Faust *2005-01-22 05:20* | [User Profile](/od/user/60) I do not think technology played much of role in the "sexual revolution." Roman had it's own "sexual revolution" with lots of fornication and birth control which caused depopulation and their society fell apart. This "sexual revolution" was ended by the coming of the Christian Church. In 1800's in America "Free Love" cults and groups were not uncommon. We did not let them get out of control. In the 1940's and 1950's America failed to act and we we all see the mess it caused. Attacking Fornication and protecing young girls should be at the top of every churchman's to do list. --- ### Faust *2005-01-25 04:43* | [User Profile](/od/user/60) The so-called "sexual revolution" is the worst crime of the Cultural Marxist and the Frankfurt School, et all. Even those who did not participate in the "sexual revolution" were hurt very badly. All the "planned parenthood" and "Sex Ed" Types should be taken to the nearest oak tree! Faust and Quantrill on this subject: [QUOTE]Quantrill, I would say it is what fornication does to women in general. "the defiled maiden is spiritually destroyed." Paul Craig Roberts did article on the "sexual revolution." What he said is Men do not want to marry whores. And I say with good reason. Faust, That is absolutely true. When I was in college, a guy would decide whether a girl was a 'party girl' or 'wife material' almost as soon as he met her. Once she was tagged as a 'party girl', he would never be interested in her for anything more meaningful than having fun. If a girl who was 'wife material' started acting like a floozy, she could become a 'party girl'. However, once a girl was a 'party gir' there was nothing she could do to become 'wife material'; if wouldn't matter if she had opened an orphanage in Calutta. The 'wife material' tag, like virtue, was unreclaimable once lost. Quantrill, All too true.[/QUOTE] Avalanche is Right! [QUOTE]Hmmm, I'm not sure catalyst is the right word. It was certainly a 'permitter' -- that is, women and girls who had bought the F.S. propaganda found it a reliable and welcome "protection" as they acted out the dictates of their inculcated destructive program. "Good" girls, of which I was one, despite having participated in the 'sexual revolution' (to a small degree -- I WAS in college at the time!), were participating NOT because the Pill made it safer, but because it was the 'right' thing to do. The Pill merely made it less scary, less likely to have bad repercussions (we thought...) **It was a function of brainwashing, not technology. Women/girls without access to the pill still participated in the "revolution"** -- the pill was merely a 'nice-to-have,' not a necessary precursor. Besides, in any revolution, some are wounded -- the pill was merely a more reliable armor for the 'soldiers' in the destruction...[/QUOTE] Also see: I Am Charlotte Simmons by Tom Wolfe [url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16260[/url] --- ### Faust *2005-01-28 17:08* | [User Profile](/od/user/60) As it was written in Proverbs Chapter 31 [QUOTE]**"Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price [is] far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life... Strength and honour [are] her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come. She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue [is] the law of kindness. She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband [also], and he praiseth her..."**[/QUOTE] --- ### Faust *2005-02-23 01:37* | [User Profile](/od/user/60) Also see this thread: "Political Correctness:" A Short History of an Ideology [url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16832[/url] Herbert Marcuse, a countercultural guru of the 1960's, was a member of the first generation of the Frankfurt School, whose activities are discussed extensively in chapter 5 (of Culture of Critique). *In Eros and Civilization Marcuse accepts Freuds theory that Western culture is pathogenic as a result of suppression of sexual urges, paying homage to Freud, who "recognized the work of repression in the highest values of Western civilization - which presuppose and perpetuate unfreedom and suffering....... Like Marcuse (Erich) Fromm was a member of the first generation of the Frankfurt School. A cornerstone of this approach is to view contemporary society as pathogenic and the development of socialism as ushering in a new era of loving human relationships. *These writer's were highly influential:** An extensive review folows showing very convincingly that these attitudes that "if only society would cease attempting to control sexuality, all would be well" were basically at the substance of the 60's "sexual revolution", which in its significant sense was one of social mores. __________________ In this sense, Frederick William I, and not Marx, was the first conscious socialist. Whither Judaism and the West, The last chapter of Culture of Critique: [url]http://www.euvolution.com/articles/lastchap.html[/url] ---