Sexual "Liberation" and the Decline of Happiness
The UK Daily Mail has run a thought-provoking piece by A. N. Wilson, deploring the damage wrought by the sexual revolution (an assessment with which I agree, and about which I have written). What I found interesting in the piece was the explicit linkage between polls finding a decline in overall levels of happiness since the 1950s and the "new normal" of sexual liberation.
The piece notes that in a recent survey, more than half the respondents answered that being in a stable relationship makes them happy. Obviously, the incidence of committed relationships has radically decreased since the sexual revolution's onset.
The author argues that the rising generation of young people will behave "more sensibly" than the baby boomers did (a low standard, to be sure!). That's probably true. Certainly, it's devoutly to be hoped -- because it won't be long before the moral codes that yielded a more traditional way of life completely fade from popular memory. It's hard enough to re-establish more stringent behavior codes even when a society can remember them; it's nearly impossible once they have faded from living memory.
So is it true, readers, that the sexual revolution succeeded in changing our behavior without changing our essential natures, and the decreased level of happiness is our natural response to that phenomenon? And do you think a more traditional moral code will ever again prevail?
- Comment (63)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (21)
Comments:
Jan '11
Re: Sexual "Liberation" and the Decline of Happiness
God isn't going anywhere.
Forgive me for oversimplifying, but the basic quality that contrasts traditional sexual morality from "revolutionary" sexual morality is commitment. The revolution thinks we can get along without it, and the traditionalists think we can't.
I'd argue that sooner or later, even if commitment isn't enshrouded in taboos, people will see its utility and virtue, and will turn to it. If not in America, then in whatever society becomes culturally dominant ... and then they'll wonder if there's any correlation between cultural success and marital and family commitment. Hey, maybe one leads to another?
Our celebrity, mass-media society deludes itself into believing that "culture" can only be achieved by "alternative" lifestyles and anti-traditionalists. But since culture is the transmission of essential values and common sense, a society that depends on the self-appointed avant garde to transmit basic social information (instead of relying on stable families) won't be able to pass on the full range of social learning that future generations need.
May '10
Re: Sexual "Liberation" and the Decline of Happiness
Probably it is the rising generation (the Millenials) that will make the decision about returning to a traditional moral code vs. continuing on the current glide path. Their apparent support for same-sex marriage doesn't give me much confidence though.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that is the way to bet (Damon Runyon).
My bet is that the moral codes that yielded a traditional (stable) way of life will continue to disappear, partly because there's very little in the way of extrinsic support. Nobody in the culture, from media to parents, from church to state, is providing support for traditional morality.
Jun '10
Re: Sexual "Liberation" and the Decline of Happiness
Carol Platt Liebau:
So is it true, readers, that the sexual revolution succeeded in changing our behavior without changing our essential natures, and the decreased level of happiness is our natural response to that phenomenon? And do you think a more traditional moral code will ever again prevail?
I say yes to the first question. Much as we delude ourselves otherwise, humans, I believe, crave love, stable connections to others, and a desire for meaning in their lives. We do our best to undermine these principles, but they abide--and when we ignore them we create unhappiness.
I must admit that I'm pessimistic about whether we'll ever return to a more traditional moral code. But, like most others, I lack historical perspective. When we make ourselves sufficiently miserable, we'll seek a way of life that makes us happier: when we do, we'll learn that freedom and license are not the same thing. I fear that it won't be any time soon.
Edited on January 8, 2013 at 2:24amOct '12
Re: Sexual "Liberation" and the Decline of Happiness
KC Mulville
Forgive me for oversimplifying, but the basic quality that contrasts traditional sexual morality from "revolutionary" sexual morality iscommitment. The revolution thinks we can get along without it, and the traditionalists think we can't.
This might be a misrepresentation of the sexual revolution. The revolution was more about women gaining more control over their body (access to birth control), the liberation of the two genders from their typical relational roles, etc. "Free love" sans commitment was in there too, but it wasn't necessarily prescriptive as a permanent lifestyle choice. Looking back, I see the casual sex element as more of a 'try before you buy' situation. The revolution I don't think prescribed commitment or non-commitment. Instead, it was about being able to choose either one, as well as change one's mind about either choice after choosing it.
Jan '11
Re: Sexual "Liberation" and the Decline of Happiness
Rawls
The revolution I don't think prescribed commitment or non-commitment. Instead, it was about being able to choose either one, as well as change one's mind about either choice after choosing it.
But isn't that the essence of "non-commitment?"
Oct '12
Re: Sexual "Liberation" and the Decline of Happiness
Well, one thing traditional sexual morality has going for it is that it is something. It is fully-articulated, has philosophical and theological heft and depth.
Sexual libertinism does not. (Or at least the structure supporting it has eluded my efforts at detection.) It is not morality but the rejection of morality (as if sex, of all things, could be of no moral consequence!); not a system but the destruction of a system; not an enduring stable thing but the restless progressive drive for the next advance, the next frontier, the next barrier to break.
Like so much of modernity, it is essentially parasitical upon that which it says it rejects. Where it rejects traditional mores, it depends on those mores being there to provide a frisson of taboo-breaking and liberation as motivation; and where it isn't yet prepared to reject traditional mores, it depends on them being there even more, so it doesn't have to justify the next demolition project ("don't be silly! this will never lead to x! nobody is saying that!") until the time is ripe.
It cannot last; but cleaning up the chaos it leaves behind will still be a Herculean effort.
Nov '10
Re: Sexual "Liberation" and the Decline of Happiness
My husband likes to point out that English society had a pretty drastic reverse sexual revolution between the 18th and 19th centuries. I googled for references on the subject and found a nice short article. At any rate, it gives me hope that we can perhaps see the same kind of reversal again.
Edited on January 8, 2013 at 12:41pmOct '12
Re: Sexual "Liberation" and the Decline of Happiness
KC Mulville
Rawls
The revolution I don't think prescribed commitment or non-commitment. Instead, it was about being able to choose either one, as well as change one's mind about either choice after choosing it.
But isn't that the essence of "non-commitment?" · 10 minutes ago
The vast majority of people go from non-committed relationships to committed ones over time—meaning that nowadays people can solidify their position and commit to a relationship whenever they'd like. Before the sexual revolution many people got married to people they didn't know that well—conjugally or otherwise—and for women the choice was often made for them. The sexual revolution was about birth control, and the ability to date around and learn about relationships before committing to one. I don't see how that's a bad thing.
Perhaps it's also led to more divorce (the essence of non-commitment you mention, KC) but ultimately I'm ok with this trade off for a number of reasons. One, it brought us the dating scene that I mention above and also reduced the number of people locked into bad marriages that will only grow worse.
Oct '12
Re: Sexual "Liberation" and the Decline of Happiness
It's a bad thing if one believes that abortion is the taking of innocent human life, because that's the only form of birth control that's truly comparable in effectiveness to abstinence. At the very least, it's necessary as a failsafe to prevent the whole sex-without-consequences mirage from being completely dispelled.
It's also a bad thing if one believes that uncommitted and sorta-committed sex gets in the way of "learn[ing] about relationships" and truly getting to know the person one is dating, far more than it helps that process. (My strong conclusion is that it does; your mileage may vary.)
And there's no "perhaps" about it--it has led and does lead to increased divorce. Whether this is an acceptable "trade off" thus depends entirely on whether one sees much benefit, and whether one believes the divorces on the other side of the ledger are only moderately regrettable or horrific catastrophes (thinking of the children involved, I believe the latter).
Edited on January 8, 2013 at 3:35amAug '12
Re: Sexual "Liberation" and the Decline of Happiness
Thanks for pre-empting the point I was about to make. I am glad someone else thought of it. There are other historical precedents, as well- the Achean League and the Roman Empire both experienced periods of degeneration like that we are seeing now in the west before the old orders completely collapsed and were replaced by a new and more "traditional" (as defined in broad strokes in this discussion) code of morality.
Mar '11
Re: Sexual "Liberation" and the Decline of Happiness
I am an optimist. But then again, as someone who lives in an Orthodox Jewish community, I see plenty of traditional people, reproducing at a high rate.
Jun '10
Re: Sexual "Liberation" and the Decline of Happiness
Carol Platt Liebau:
So is it true, readers, that the sexual revolution succeeded in changing our behavior without changing our essential natures, and the decreased level of happiness is our natural response to that phenomenon? And do you think a more traditional moral code will ever again prevail?
In a word, no. The advent of easy sex was a joyous occasion for young men everywhere. The idea that sex with only one partner, only after marriage and only for procreation is the height of silliness. Seriously, this kind of thing has never worked in 6,000 plus years of recorded history, something that seems beyond the comprehension of those who live in daily terror that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.
If you want to see moral decline in action I'd suggest finding the correlation of the rise of law schools to the decline of morals in America. Just look at the halls of congress.
I doubt that a "traditional" moral code will every return, for whatever value of traditional nostalgia brings to mind. Rather, I believe a new, stricter than present moral code will grow out of the disgust people have for the standards of today.
Jun '12
Re: Sexual "Liberation" and the Decline of Happiness
There is a kind of cynical satisfaction in seeing even liberal academia come to grips with the undeniable truth that the sexual revolution is a wasteland. Traditional morality will return, because there are a sufficient number of enclaves that still carry the fire. But society will reap a very bitter harvest for decades, probably generations, to come before it becomes the norm again.
May '10
Re: Sexual "Liberation" and the Decline of Happiness
Answer: who's having more babies, the cool people or the squares? Repeat for a couple generations and do the math.
Jan '11
Re: Sexual "Liberation" and the Decline of Happiness
Carol Platt Liebau:
What I found interesting in the piece was the explicit linkage between polls finding a decline in overall levels of happiness since the '50's and the "new normal" of sexual liberation...
I think it's worth noting that the 50s were an exceptional time in America, and one that can't be easily repeated. WWII had left us as by far the largest intact industrialized country in the world, making it unusually easy to start and maintain a middle-class family with relatively little formal education.
Given the USA's inherently strong national characteristics, this situation all-but-garunteed bot a high level of national happiness than the norm, and lower rates of illegitimacy than normal. Think about it this way: any 18-year-old who knocked up his girlfriend could support her and their child --- comfortably -- with just a high school degree. That was neither historically normal nor sustainable.
I realize this is a fairly limited analysis, but that's sort of my point.
Edited on January 8, 2013 at 7:43amJan '11
Re: Sexual "Liberation" and the Decline of Happiness
Blog Goliard:
Sexual libertinism does not. (Or at least the structure supporting it has eluded my efforts at detection.) It is not morality but the rejection of morality (as if sex, of all things, could be of no moral consequence!); not a system but the destruction of a system...
Must we conflate everything other than abstinence-before-marriage with sexual libertinism? And must we presume that only libertines have benefitted from the Sexual Revolution?
As tired as I am of hearing many on the Left treat it as an absolute good (obvious nonsense), I'm equally tired of many on the Right decry it as an absolute evil.
Oct '12
Re: Sexual "Liberation" and the Decline of Happiness
Tom Meyer
Mustwe conflate everything other than abstinence-before-marriage with sexual libertinism? And must we presume that only libertines have benefitted from the Sexual Revolution?
I do, because I see traditional morality and libertinism as the only two players on the field.
I'll concede that many people--perhaps even a wide majority of people--follow neither of these in practice. From my vantage point working on a university campus, it instead looks as though the "liberated" young feel their way by means of half-thought-out, frequently-shifting standards, ad hoc rationalizations, and after-the-fact taking stock of where their choices have taken them.
Such people do not move the culture (they are, rather, moved by it) and they are not generally belligerents in the culture war (they are, rather, collateral damage). The fight over sexual ethics, and the future of marriage and the family, continues to be waged between those defending traditional morality and those pressing inexorably onward towards libertinism. Forever onward, because even when taking a temporary stand on this or that spot, there is no limiting principle or underlying ethic strong enough to hold them there...even if they want to stop there.
Jan '11
Re: Sexual "Liberation" and the Decline of Happiness
Blog Goliard
I do, because I see traditional morality and libertinism as the only two players on the field... From my vantage point working on a university campus, it instead looks as though the "liberated" young feel their way by means of half-thought-out, frequently-shifting standards, ad hoc rationalizations, and after-the-fact taking stock of where their choices have taken them.
Even without knowing what college you work at, I'd wager, as Rawls said in #8, that most of them will settle down and start incredibly bourgeois families within a decade. I've observed this in my own life: the people I went to a secular liberal arts college with are filling my Facebook feed with engagement notices, wedding pictures, and sonogram stills... posted in that order, too.
For a more data-driven take on this, I'd encourage you to check out Red Families v. Blue Families. I'm only a couple of chapters into it, but it makes a pretty compelling case that there are two competing family models in America and both are failing, the one because it works only for the affluent, the other because it works only for the devout.
Jan '11
Re: Sexual "Liberation" and the Decline of Happiness
Rawls
Before the sexual revolution many people got married to people they didn't know that well—conjugally or otherwise—and for women the choice was often made for them. [...] One, it brought us the dating scene that I mention above and also reduced the number of people locked into bad marriages that will only grow worse.
Well, I disagree. The sexual revolution in America and Europe had nothing to do with arranged marriages, which had been long gone by the Sixties.
But I have a long-standing dispute against the notion that commitment can be "tried." I consider that a myth. How do you experiment with commitment?
Besides, society already had a method of seeing whether people were ready for marriage. It was called courtship. And it worked on a fairly simple principle: during courtship, the partners (not to mention the rest of the family) explored and examined each other's character.
The sexual revolution rejected courtship. In fact, it rejected marriage. The revolution held that what mattered was simply the sex. Of course, if you wanted a marriage, you could have that also. But sex is here and marriage is there; they're unrelated.
Jul '12
Re: Sexual "Liberation" and the Decline of Happiness
I certainly don't. To me, sexual libertinism is an ethos that separates the sexual act from emotional intimacy, commitment, and responsibility. Notwithstanding any religious objections I may have, I don't really see the sex that occurs within a monogamous relationship of 4 years as any more libertine than the sex occurring within a marriage of 4 years.
That said, I prefer a more pragmatic approach: 1) encourage youth to delay the onset of sexual activity, and 2) expect that this sexual activity only occur in the confines of a committed and loving relationship.
At the same time, I still think abstinence should be advocated by our culture for those who have the desire and willpower to remain abstinent. Right now, my impression is that those who even suggest abstinence are mocked and ridiculed. That needs to change.