Women Not the Only Losers of the Sexual Revolution

	posted by Scott on Sunday September 02, @10:13PM from the fatherhood dept.
	Not PC sent in this article by TownHall columnist Paul Craig Roberts. Roberts writes that, contrary to the common stereotypes, men have also been harmed by the sexual revolution, which is making it increasingly difficult for men to find long-term relationships and, in particular, marriage with a woman. "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." Later in the article Roberts also looks at the way marriage has been decimated by easy divorces. He acknowledges that marriage has even become a foolish choice for most men these days, and that some serious reform of divorce laws will be needed recover the value of marriage. His message is that the sexual revolution has also destroyed the value of lifelong fathers, and so men are also the losers of the sexual revolution.

<  Reader Response on Men's Health | Farrell Says Frozen Embryos May Assist Choice For Men  >

  

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Eh, yes and no by Anonymous User on Wednesday September 05, @10:13PM EST (#1) Not all men (or women) are monogamous, so a different partner every night IS comforting to many people. No, I'm not one of those people, but I know people like this, and I don't think there's anything wrong with them. They're just naturally polyamorous. Nor does everyone want children and grandchildren. Many men (and women) choose to be childfree--even if they're monogamous and married. I do agree that the notion of "polyamory is great because we produce more offspring" is deeply flawed. Yeah, it produces more offspring, and then those kids go on to (unknowingly) have sex with their own brothers and sisters, which produces horrific genetic defects in successive generations. The Amish community is seeing babies born with no anuses and other deformities straight out of a horror movie. If nature wanted *everyone* to be poly, it wouldn't be possible for the blood to get too thick. All that said, I think it is difficult being monogamous in America today. The article made some good points about this. Acceptance and tolerance of those who are naturally poly is a good thing, but encouraging *everyone* to swing is not. Even many true polyamorists have primary partners, and not all of them are into "sport sex." I disagree that the answer is to make it harder for people to get divorced. It's better to make it harder to get married in the first place. Too many people hastily get married to incompatible partners. Better yet, and this is what I want, let's get the gov't out of marriage completely. Gov't-sanctioned marriage violates the Constitutional separation of church and state. Let's put marriage (and therefore divorce) back where it belongs, in the hands of the church.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]