Jump to content

Talk:Sexual revolution

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cvelmonte.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First Person Plural?

[edit]

"The sexual revolution had shifted how we think [...]" Not really proper for an encyclopaedia article, right? Who is "we?" 71.131.133.156 (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Errata

[edit]

This article contains a simple error in reference to 'the “girls world” decision in 1965'. I don't think that case may be found, instead it should read "Griswold v. Connecticut" (also 1965). The source of the error appears to be spoonerism or typo. --66.217.173.126 (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is no "end of the revolution"

[edit]

Why is this section here? We did not stop evolving in the 1980s. That is a ridiculous thing to write.

The sexual revolution is continuing in modern forms which need to be documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizza Lord (talk • contribs) 01:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The AIDS epidemic has been seen sometimes as heralding - not the end, but a reevaluation of casual, free sexuality as a lifestyle. It became untenable to just sleep around with anyone and everyone without any sort of precaution or protection, but this new need for control was still not a return to any old, strict set of repressive morals.83.254.151.33 (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The influence of movies

[edit]

There's no denying that some currents in moviemaking were influential on discussions around new sexual attitudes, as well as actually reflecting the new liberal mores. But it probably wasn't just Swedish films that were at the head of this. The early French Nouvelle Vague with films such as Jules and Jim and La Chinoise, not to mention the early career of Brigitte Bardot, made a very powerful impact too.

And a U.S. film such as The Wild Angels, even if it wasn't a very ambitious reel, clearly explores themes of free sex and violent revolt against old-style morals. That one was made, and seen by millions, even before the summer of love. 83.254.151.33 (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Masturbation template

[edit]

Regarding diff, totally no worries, I agree with the rationale provided in the edit summary by Rwessel.

Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section

[edit]

this section ends with the phrase "that's a kind of taboo behaviour technically called "repressive desublimation"." what is this actually referring to? Sex, free sex, or the misconception? can anyone clarify? IdreamofJeanie (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone recently added a piece under "Criticism" about British social anthropologist Joseph D. Unwin and his claims that sexual openness, freedom to associate and lack of tight sexual discipline are bound to impair the strength, vigour and creative force of any society. The same chunk, almost verbatim, was added to Sexual abstinence. The book cited, however, was published in 1934, and Unwin died a few years later, so it relates to an age well before what we know as the sexual revolution. The appreciative line by Aldous Huxley about Unwin's work is from a 1946 book which looks too early and too isolated to be relevant, and Huxley is no kind of scientist or cultural historian (indeed he just makes an in blanco gesture declaring that Unwin's book is of the utmost importance and based on a wealth of evidence, bypassing any kind of discussion of the pros and cons of this evidence). Invoking him as a reliable and non-biased source here is like using Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited to support an article about Roman catholicism in modern Britain.

Of course discussion about the sinful and liberated modern world was a topic in the twenties and thirties as well, but the connection to the modern sexual revolution is quite marginal and this insert looks like editorializing. To tie it in with the rest, the editor begins: "Some critics of the sexual revolution and the sexual freedom which it brought claim that the sexual revolution had a negative impact on society and point to the work of J. D. Unwin.". At the very least, you'd like to know who "some critics" are, and whether they are notable several decades later, and per WP:OR and WP:Syn one would also like to see someone other than these "critics" themselves linking their thoughts about the sexual revolution (not about sexual habits in general) with Unwin's ideas. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're speaking of what Stephen2512 (talk · contribs) added. Feel free to remedy the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well if it hasn't found considerably better, more relevant (and more recent) sourcing in two or three days time then I figure it should get pulled. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage pregnancy rates

[edit]

The decrease in teenage pregnancy rates is offered as evidence of the "end of the sexual revolution". This seems a considerable extension of what the sources say (at least the two I was able to view). Increased contraceptive, for example, use may well produce the same result. Rwessel (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sexual revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sexual revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's very bad article

[edit]

first sexual revolution occurred in Soviet Russia after 1917--Мечников (talk) 07:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Changed

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I am updating the first image associated with the article to one that is more appropriate to the page's topic. Jlbrandt (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new photo of the buttons from the days of sexual liberation. The photo definitely shows the zeitgeist of the time as discussed in the text of the article. AnaSoc (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naked News photo

[edit]

I deleted the Naked News photo of the topless reporter because the photo was taken in 2008, over two decades after the Sexual Liberation Movement had fallen into decline. The photo is not illustrative of the Sexual Liberation movement as described in the article.AnaSoc (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new photo of the buttons from the days of sexual liberation. The photo definitely shows the zeitgeist of the time as discussed in the text of the article. AnaSoc (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chrissymad, regarding this, are you fine with the image that Jlbrandt added? WP:NOTCENSORED is not all that we go by for matters such as these. WP:Offensive material is something we also go by. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

first photo

[edit]

I deleted the photograph of Marilyn Monroe as it was not relevant to the article. The sexual revolution occurred 1960s-1980s according to the text of the article. Marilyn Monroe was famous in the 1950s. She is not representative of the sexual liberation movement or the sexual revolution as she passed away before it really got underway. I liked the photo contributed by Jlbrandt of the buttons from the movement. Any objections to bringing that one back? AnaSoc (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

back to basics, maybe

[edit]

The article clearly descends from someone's essay, and was added to by various essayists, so naturally enough still suffers from that origin. I gave it a look, and it seems obvious that the socalled "revolution" is readily divisible into two parts: personal expression (e.g. homosexuality, nonmonogamy) and media expression (e.g. porn). Everything else (e.g. the inevitable pedants who will squawk about examples that fit into both slots) takes up very little space here.

The article is a scattered mess for failing to acknowledge that "two worlds" actuality, and so thrashes wildly from one to the other then back again, trying to cram everything in. As direct outfall of this thrashing, it's difficult (maybe impossible) to impose any sort of historical timeline onto the text.

My strong suggestion is to begin by pushing all the individualistic stuff into one pile, and the media-centric stuff into another. The "chicken-or-egg" details ("did more sex on screen cause more swinging, or was it the other way around?") as well as any awkward highlights can be appended much more easily if there's a sound underlying structure.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weeb Dingle, regarding the globalize tag you added, read Template:Globalize. The article is U.S.-centric because the sexual revolution is mainly discussed in the context of the United States. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've read your last sentence five times, and still cannot fathom your intent. You seem to be saying "the article is limited because the article is limited," which is certainly the point I intended to make. You don't present the case that "the article is U.S.-centric because the Sexual Revolution largely affected/affects only the United States," which does have potential basis but would need to be supported — and that support would NECESSARILY need to be spelled out in the article, not on the Talk page. Until that is done, I will stand firm on the Globalize header.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weeb Dingle, you read my last sentence five times and yet you don't understand what I mean, even when pointing you to Template:Globalize? Hmm. Then why don't you provide some WP:Reliable sources here on this talk page showing just how far this article can be globalized. I assure you that it can't be globalized much beyond the United States. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no need to globalize, then Sexual revolution in 1960s United States is redundant and clearly ought to be incorporated here.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weeb Dingle, I didn't say that there is no need to globalize; I said that this topic can't be globalized much beyond the United States. I'm only saying that the topic mainly concerns the United States. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the article needs to be re-titled

[edit]

The article head makes clear that it is about "sexual revolution," lowercase generic. It does nothing to explore that potential, for instance about the appearances of similar "revolutions" throughout history and across cultures.

The article lede says it instead is about "the Sexual Revolution."

Eithe change the title or change the content.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Article titles. And see WP:Requested moves to officially propose a move request. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, do I need to raise the issue of you stalking me all across Wikipedia?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Do learn how to act properly on this site. You are coming across as immature. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

revolution, not liberation

[edit]

Except for two unfounded claims in the lede (the first weaselled in with an "also" and gratuitous caps) and three appearances about porn, all usage of sexual liberation is in Feminism and sexual liberation. If it's being held up as a "thing" yet somehow undeserving of its own article, then the term ought to be actually defined.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feminism and Sexual liberation sections needs some improves for NPOV and missing content issues

[edit]

Here are the current problems with the section that I see:

  • Radical feminism did not embrace sexual liberation quit to the degree that is implied in the article. The fact is that many radical feminists hold the view that due to presence of the patriarchy, that most heterosexual women cannot currently make a truly free and fair decision regarding their sexual agency and that while sexual liberation for heterosexual women is great in theory, it's not, in their view, a practical reality just yet (due to the patriarchy). This is an issue that should be mentioned in the article. We may want to flesh it out even more in a separate article.
  • Sex-positive feminists see themselves as the only feminists fully embracing women's sexual liberation. They largely reject that notion that the patriarchy prevents most heterosexual/bisexual/pan-sexual women these days from making informed and freely consensual sexual choices involving men. Sexual liberation and freedom for women is a key element of sex-positive feminism and as such needs to be included in this article, in a NPOV way of course.
  • It is mentioned that debates have occurred in feminist circles over topics like pornography, BDSM, and female sexuality in general but with no explanation as to what the debates are. There is no reason we can't at least summarize the issues here and if we need to go more in-depth we can have a separate article like I suggested. We can also link separately to topics that already have separate article like "Feminism and pornography".
  • I think it might be beneficial to have a separate article that deals with the issue of sexuality/sexual freedom/woman's sex issue in general and feminism, where we can at least briefly all the different issue relating to feminism and sex, including debates over pornography, sexual liberation/agency, BDSM, and lesbianism. Since some of those topics have their own article already, we can simply summarize them in the new article and include links to the main articles. For the general topic of sexual liberation/freedom/agency, we can discuss the debates in greater detail since that topic is not covered already in it's own article.
--108.239.8.149 (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

no bright ideas here

[edit]

Thank you for providing some great starting-points. I want the article to be better, but find myself stymied at where to even begin sorting this out. Every time I revisit it, I see mostly a random pile of loosely related topics. Still, I regret my sloth.

It's been awhile (too long): I recall someone saying Kate Millett made the case that "The Sexual Revolution" — always used singularly in the popular imagination, if that's not a total oxymoron — took place 1830-1930, and that 1930-1960 was the counter-revolution where patriarchal sexism reasserted itself, perhaps made stronger by having a unified framework in the overall culture. I must be Google-fuddled at the moment, as I cannot find anything that expands/updates this thought.

The See also list is beginning to bloat up with the WP-endemic inclusion of ever-more-loosely-related articles. There are a few I'll readily pare back; however, the list of Feminist views on... seems out of place in an article that's not primarily (or even secondarily) about feminism.

It does, though, bring up Feminist sex wars, which covers a historically interesting (if brief) era that attempted to resolve differences over "pornography, erotica, prostitution, lesbian sexual practices, the role of trans women in the lesbian community, sadomasochism and other sexual issues." This is mentioned only twice in the present article, two uses of the identical sentence, both devoid of attribution. I'm hoping for a way to expand upon these squibs in proper context.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Businesses capitalizing on increasingly permissive society (needing reference)

[edit]

The end of the Pornographic film section says "By the mid-1970s and through the 1980s, newly won sexual freedoms were being exploited by big businesses looking to capitalize on an increasingly permissive society, with the advent of public and hardcore pornography," with a reference to "Bannon, Ann. Sexual Revolution (9781560255253)".

However, Ann Bannon is not an author/contributor of that book. And it is not clear which article in the book is referred to.

Is it possible to find the correct reference?

Freud's Insanity

[edit]

Any reference to Freud's notions of sexuality should be annotated to the effect he was incorrect, and just a deranged and sex-obsessed individual whose bizarre ideas had no scientific basis, and are of no value whatever today. Rather, common sense is correct; the human sexual urge drives only sexual behaviour, and not any other behaviour. 122.151.210.84 (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a talking point for Talk:Sigmund_Freud. If you decide to make your point there I'd recommend you come with sources, not just your opinion. 137.110.71.210 (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sexual_revolution&oldid=1258835994"