Sex | Introduction
In her book Slut!: Growing Up Female with a Bad Reputation, Leora Tanenbaum decries the societal message that adolescent girls often receive—that only bad, “slutty” women have sexual desires. Conversely, Wendy Shalit, author of A Return to Modesty, maintains that teenagers’ discomfort with sexuality is an “instinctive,” protective mechanism that can help youths avoid premature sexual relations. In a July 1999 Salon magazine article featuring a debate between these two authors, Tanenbaum asserts that “girls and boys” should learn that “sexual desire is a natural part of adolescence” lest they end up feeling “guilty and ashamed of their own sexual desire.” Shalit counters that “girls are then more vulnerable because they don’t have . . . embarrassment to protect them.”
This disagreement between Shalit and Tanenbaum mirrors a larger conflict in society concerning the liberal sexual ideals that first gained wide acceptance in the 1960s. These ideals—particularly the acceptance of nonmarital sex and open attitudes toward sexuality—are being challenged by those who advocate more conservative approaches to sexual issues. Debate remains fierce over whether sexual liberation or restraint serves society best.
Much of this debate focuses on the sexual revolution—the radical transformation of sexual attitudes and mores that began in the 1960s—and its effect on women. As its defenders point out, the sexual revolution expanded women’s options regarding sex. The advent of the birth control pill increased female access to contraception, and this, in conjunction with the women’s rights movement, afforded women more control over their sexual lives. Meanwhile, societal censure of nonmarital sex and cohabitation decreased. By the mid-1970s, a pregnant, unmarried woman could either have an abortion or opt for single motherhood—with less stigma attached to both—and feel less obligated to enter into an unwanted marriage. As author Lillian B. Rubin writes, “Women, reveling in their newfound liberation, sought the sexual freedom that had been for so long ‘for men only.’”
But many believe that the sexual revolution has come at too high a cost. According to National Public Radio commentator Frederica Mathewes-Green, “the negative fallout has been hard to ignore: divorce, disease, abortion, illegitimacy, and multiplying heartbreak.” Moreover, Mathewes- Green argues, as societal acceptance of sex without commitment has increased, the possibilities for committed, genuinely loving relationships between young men and women have decreased: “If girls give sex to get love, while boys give love in order to get sex, dumping free sex on the market inevitably drove the cost of love through the roof. Female bargaining power was demolished. Girls had to fling enormous quantities of sex at boys in desperate attempts to buy the smallest units of love.” Sexual liberation, many observers contend, has left women embittered by the lack of depth and intimacy in their lives and men emotionally isolated and detached from relationships and family life.
This growing disillusionment with casual sex—intensified by high divorce rates and the fear of sexually transmitted diseases—has started to produce “more cautious, conservative attitudes among the young,” maintains syndicated columnist John Leo. “Support for premarital sex remains high, but it dropped from 80 percent in 1988 to 71 percent in 1995,” Leo reports. Moreover, he points out, teen sexual activity, as well as teen pregnancy, is on the decrease. Antipromiscuity messages are on the rise—from revised sex education curricula that promote sexual abstinence to selfhelp books such as Ellen Fein and Sherrie Schneider’s The Rules: Time-Tested Secrets for Capturing the Heart of Mr. Right. Increasingly, religious and political conservatives are stressing the importance of abstinence among singles and heterosexual monogamy among married couples, proclaiming that only these forms of sexual conduct create healthy families and stable societies.
Many progressives grant that the sexual revolution has contributed to the creation of a “hypersexualized” society. They lament, for example, the exploitation of sexuality seen in advertising and in the entertainment industry. As Sarah van Gelder, executive director of the Positive Futures Network, writes: “The mysteries of sexual ecstasy are trivialized— all is laid out in magazines and videos. There is little discussion of the effects of inundating the culture with superficial images of sexuality and associating those images with consumerism, violence, and exploitation rather than love and creativity.” An aversion to commercialized “valueless” sexuality, van Gelder contends, causes some people to seek the safety of clearly defined, traditional values that emphasize monogamous heterosexual marriage as the norm.
Some liberals and feminists, however, maintain that the backlash against sexual liberation is really a backlash against female independence. In their book The Gender of Sexuality, Pepper Schwartz and Virginia Rutter contend that today’s conservative activists wish to “browbeat women back into traditional incarnations of womanhood by resurrecting the flagging double standard.” For instance, Schwartz and Rutter argue, conservatives who disapprove of out-of-wedlock births may denounce “all those who have sex outside of marriage. But because women bear children, they are easier targets of scandal and criticism than are men.” An example of this can be seen in the 1996 arrest of an unmarried pregnant nineteen- year-old in Boise, Idaho. In an attempt to stem the tide of unwed pregnancies, the town had decided to enforce its old laws against fornication: The woman was placed on probation and required to do community service for engaging in nonmarital sex. The police targeted her because they had been told to seek out women with “big bellies and no wedding rings.” Such a policy, Schwartz and Rutter point out, winks at unwed sex among males while punishing women for the same behavior. Although the Idaho case is unusual, these authors maintain, it is indicative of a more widespread desire to limit women’s sexual autonomy.
To thwart such double standards, many policymakers stress the need for Americans to become more educated about sexuality so that they can approach the traditionally taboo subject from a reasonable perspective. The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), for example, contends that increased access to information about sexuality helps people take responsibility for their own attitudes and behavior. In SIECUS’s view, sexually informed adults “engage in sexual relationships that are consensual, nonexploitative, honest, pleasurable, and protected against disease and unintended pregnancy.” Moreover, such individuals “demonstrate respect for people with different sexual values.”
Whether the U.S. can resolve its conflicts over sexuality remains to be seen. For now, the forces of both sexual liberation and restraint continue to mold sexual ideals, and the legacy of the sexual revolution remains controversial. The authors in Sex: Opposing Viewpoints debate some of the most contentious issues concerning sexuality in the following chapters: What Is the State of Sexual Ethics in America? What Sexual Behaviors Should Society Promote? How Should Sex Education Be Conducted? Are Some Sexual Practices Unacceptable? Sexual attitudes and behavior in the United States have changed dramatically in recent decades. How these values continue to shift will play an important role in shaping society in the future.
