The Raw Deal | How Sexual Freedom Made Women Disposable
“Sexual freedom, sexual liberation. A modern delusion.” - Camille Paglia¹
Sexual liberation was one of the cornerstones that defined the 1960s women’s movement. It was a period characterized by the civil rights movement as a result of growing social tensions between the sexes and races. Soon, every man, woman, and child was caught in the crossfire of what was to be a dramatic cultural shift in American life. Numerous factors played a role in this transition, but none had more of an effect on romantic relationships than what the Sexual Revolution had wrought: the invention of birth control and the political influence of second-wave Feminism.
The birth control pill’s primary function was to offer women an effective form of controlling pregnancy so that they could have greater bodily autonomy. When Gregory Pincus, the creator of the first oral contraceptive pill, Enovid, first came to market, it became an instant success. There were only a limited amount of studies done on birth control at the time, particularly the infamous Puerto Rico trials, but soon, Pincus expanded his operation in Haiti and Mexico City. Eventually, the FDA approved Enovid, specifically for the treatment of severe menstrual disorders. Women flocked to take advantage of this new, magical pill despite the potential hormonal side effects. To put in perspective, oral contraceptives today contain anywhere between 0.1 to 3 milligrams of modern progestins and 20 to 50 micrograms of estrogens compared to 9.85 milligrams of the progestin norethynodrel and 150 milligrams of the estrogen mestranol—a drastic difference.² Of course, the higher dose was done purposely to prove the pill’s effectiveness—and proved it did. For the first time in human history, women could mitigate the risks of having children while still having sex. While various contraceptive methods have been used since ancient times, from plants to natural oils, none has matched the potency of the pill.
Coincidingly, feminism was resurging back into public consciousness with the advent of the civil rights movement. Second-wave feminism, as it’s referenced today, was the era of radical feminism. Radical feminists such as Gloria Steinem, Kate Millet, and Betty Friedan became the mouthpiece of a generation of women who felt unequal to men. Throughout the 60s and 70s, private life became a political war zone for the feminist movement. So much so that they’ve become known for the popular phrase “the personal is political,” created by feminist writer Carol Hanisch in her essay of the same title. She detailed how women’s personal and psychological issues were actually political in nature and could only be combated by drawing attention to the oppressive systems that confine women to their expectant role as mothers or housewives.³ Second-wave feminists sought to rectify women’s state of affairs by pushing narratives that showcased the supposed inequalities between men and women. Some oft-cited examples of these inequalities include the gender pay gap, the glass ceiling, the ‘1 in 5’, and the objectification of women. Feminists spread these ideas into the political sphere and eventually infiltrated the private lives of everyday Americans through various rallies and fundraisers in an effort to “raise consciousness” about the plight of women. Needless to say, the movement successfully gave women more job opportunities with the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
While birth control and second-wave feminism gave women more autonomy over their bodies and social standing within Western society, it also created the necessary conditions for certain men to take advantage of the situation. Indeed, a Sexual Revolution would not be complete without sex, both the meaning and act itself, being overthrown for a new standard of sexuality—one that would allow men and women the freedom to indulge in bodily pleasures instead of repressing them.
Since the beginning of human history, sexual regulations have varied depending on a society’s cultural condition. In primitive cultures, sexual regulations tend to be less restrictive. Young men and women were able to have prenuptial sex without having to be chastised by their elders, so long as they did not result in prenuptial pregnancy. Of course, allowing sex without commitment presents a whole list of social problems that are initially overlooked. For starters, it skews sexual relationships that favor more promiscuous men while exploiting a large number of women. This “raw deal” is essentially a silent agreement between the sexes—that women are free to make their choices regarding their bodies, and men can have access to such bodies so long as they have women’s consent. On its face, it seems reasonable to allow adults freedom of choice to do what they want with their bodies, but what is often neglected is the emotional harm that is inflicted on women and the social degradation that occurs with the breakdown of monogamous relationships. To understand how and why this happens, we must first examine the mating strategies of men and women and how marriage places checks and balances on these strategies.
Firstly, in a sexually free society, short-term mating is more viable and, therefore, more prevalent than long-term mating. Short-term mating in women tends to make them more hypergamous, meaning they will focus on high-status men who can provide them security through resources or who have high-quality genetics. Short-term mating in men, on the other hand, will make them prioritize sexual novelty and variety. Moreover, men can more easily have sex indiscriminately without emotional attachment.⁴ Because of this, men who take advantage of women’s sexual freedom can essentially have sex and walk away unfazed, whereas women must learn to detach themselves from emotional entanglement. The difference in how men and women experience sex is a classic theory of mind problem. Journalist and author Louise Perry echoes this sentiment in her book, The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, stating that:
“Young women are typically unaware that men are, in general, much better suited to emotionless sex and find it much easier to regard their sexual partners as disposable. Ignorant of this fact, women can all too easily fail to recognize that being desired is not at all the same thing as being held in high esteem.” - Louise Perry ⁵
If higher concentrations of men and women engage in short-term mating, it is average to below average men and women who lose in the mating market and the above average men who corner it. Women’s sexual freedom is only beneficial to those who want casual sex. And since men are higher in sociosexuality than women, it is they who will continue to encourage sexual liberation, even if it is at the expense of average men and women.
Secondly, in a sexually free society, monogamy declines in favor of more open relationships, typically involving multiple partners. Women’s liberation was the catalyst that created the environment necessary for alternative mating systems to flourish by enacting policies antithetical to monogamous marriage. More specifically, it was the radical feminists who touted that marriage was a life sentence of perpetual servitude—servitude to men. Freedom for women, thus, could only be achieved if they could break the sentence at any time. And so, the policy of No-Fault Divorce was authorized.
In some cases, it was a boon for wives whose husbands were physically or verbally abusive, allowing them to leave the marriage and have it sanctioned by law. However, the wives who did not face such struggles yet were inconsolable in their marriages would take advantage of the policy by leaving their husbands for better prospects. In small numbers, it has little effect on society until it becomes common practice. Today, approximately half of all marriages end in divorce (provide reference). Given these circumstances, how have women become disposable when they have more freedom than ever? How does marriage prevent women’s disposability?
The institution of marriage was designed to counteract promiscuity by having us socially enforce monogamy to curtail our most primal instincts. When women clamor for sexual freedom, they are not opposing marriage per se, only the terms and conditions associated with such a union. But it is the terms and conditions that prevent them from becoming disposable in the first place. When one woman is paired with one man for life and their community instructs them to remain sexually faithful to one another, it mitigates the risks of one partner abandoning the other.
If men and women were more similar in sociosexuality, we would likely not see an issue, but as it stands currently, male and female sexuality is different. And unless we can fundamentally change the mating psychology of thousands of years of evolution, sexual freedom will always come at the expense of women to some degree or another. Given these factors, it would seem that the best solution, while imperfect, is promoting monogamy by way of marriage or social enforcement to counteract the social damage of the Sexual Revolution. But promoting marriage without first fixing the culture that defies it is an effort in futility. These include reforming social policies that encourage separation between partners (no-fault divorce and child support) and discouraging behaviors that lead to relationship conflict (sexual promiscuity and infidelity). We do this by changing the West’s current moral landscape into something that promotes healthy masculinity and femininity instead of radicalizing the sexes into becoming the worst aspects of themselves.
For women to no longer be disposable, they must first make themselves respectable. And for them to be worthy of respect, they must not mistake desirability for respectability. Healthy femininity is less about sex appeal and more about modesty. Stoic philosopher Epictetus had similar sentiments regarding the women of Rome, observing that:
"When [women] see that they have nothing else than to be bedfellows of men, they begin to beautify themselves and put all their hopes on that. It is, therefore, worthwhile for us to take pains to make them understand that they are honoured for nothing else but only for appearing modest and self-respecting." - Epictetus ⁶
When sex becomes more accessible for men, women think the best they can offer to keep their companionship is their bodies. And if not their companionship, at least their monetary resources. Indeed, today’s digital age has produced the worst female archetypes. From the E-Girl Twitch streamer to the OnlyFans models, women will advertise their sexuality so long as men keep paying for it. Hence why, men must also be worthy of respect by not engaging in sexual deviancy. Men who pay for sex, whether digitally online or physically, by meeting in person are contributing to the problem by making it worse. Young men, in particular, are the most susceptible to these temptations and will likely abandon prescience for instant gratification. The historians Will and Ariel Durant wrote similar conclusions in their book, The Lessons of History, asserting that:
“A youth boiling with hormones will wonder why he should not give full freedom to his sexual desires; and if he is unchecked by custom, morals, or laws, he may ruin his life before he matures sufficiently to understand that sex is a river of fire that must be banked and cooled by a hundred restraints if it is not to consume in chaos both the individual and the group.” - Will & Ariel Durant ⁷
Without guidelines for sexual behavior, men and women will not be sexually free but imprisoned—held captive by their worst impulses. Debauchery follows soon after, leading to the decline of not only society but love and connection between the sexes. Men and women will use each other to satisfy their ends, leaving future generations to repair the emotional wounds left behind. If we are to mend these wounds, we must stop engaging in the culture that the Sexual Revolution created. Instead, we should do as the Greek philosopher Plutarch would suggest, and that:
“We certainly ought not to treat living creatures like shoes or household goods, which, when worn with use, we throw away.” - Plutarch ⁸
Ultimately, we should treat each other with the same kindness and compassion we would want for ourselves and not take advantage of someone’s sexual vulnerability to gratify our immediate desires. Traditional Western values have always been the primary way to extoll these virtues, but it has become clear that the solution is not necessarily to return to how things were—modern technology has assured us that there is no return. The only solution is to move forward by teaching our children about the reality of sex and why men and women should not build their relationships around it. If we can shift the cultural tide towards a healthy understanding of sex and relationships, then, in time, we can end this “raw deal” and create a new harmony between the sexes.
