Are progressives reversing the sexual revolution?

In Armistead Maupin’s 1978 soap opera novel Tales of the City, almost every character (gay and straight) is busy having one night stands in San Francisco. At one point, Brian and Mouse wonder if the next generation of young people will rebel by reverting to Victorianism. But it wasn’t a serious question. It was a silly question they could laugh about.


But on second thought…

The sexual revolution, consent, and objectification

Raja Halwani, writing for, says that “sexual desire is objectifying – and hence morally wrong.” But he’s not a conservative Christian longing for a return to traditional values.

The left embraced sexual freedom in the 1960s. Today, only a minority of people think premarital sex is wrong, and a slight majority support same sex marriage.

Our grandparents had clarity: if you’re not married heterosexuals then sex is wrong. But as the clearly defined boundaries of the 1950s blurred, sexual assault and rape increased (though these crimes have decreased since the 1990s). And men seemed to benefit more from the sexual revolution because women still had to worry about being labeled a slut.

No means no and increasing awareness about the objectification of women were two responses. But no means no has a loophole. Some claimed that if she didn’t say yes but didn’t no then it’s not rape.

This problem lead to yes means yes. The lack of no is insufficient for consent. But what if the yes is nonverbal? Is that really yes? What if she said yes but later says she felt pressured?

It was decided that the yes must be enthusiastic. But even this is problematic. How enthusiastic? And how do you measure adequate enthusiasm?

There are more gray areas. Do these guidelines apply equally for women to seek men’s consent? If both are equally drunk (but not incapacitated) and agree to have sex, but both regret it the next morning, is only the man at fault? What if the woman initiated? What if the couple is lesbian or gay? Who’s at fault then?

The simple solution: sex is bad

We’re not achieving the clarity our grandparents had. Halwani, however, takes progressive thought to a new level: sex is wrong because sex almost always involves objectification. And, “not even love can fix it.”

So, we’ve come full circle. Sorry, Brian and Mouse, but you may have been more right than you thought.

This line of progressive thought converges with some conservative ideologies. I was raised Catholic. The Church teaches that sex is for procreation and must only happen within the bonds of sacramental marriage.

How did the Catholic Church come to that conclusion? Was it misogyny? Were the Church fathers obsessed with controlling others? These are common progressive beliefs.

But maybe, 2,000 years ago the Church came to a similar conclusion as Halwani is coming to today. Sexuality is such a delicate subject that nothing but firm and clear boundaries will minimize human suffering. Of course, we know that’s not true either, but that’s tangential.

Instead of objectification, the Church spoke about the body being the temple of the Holy Spirit, and the potential for sex to profane that temple. Both notions are concerned that sex can be dehumanizing. So the Church, like Halwani, decided that sex necessarily means compromising one’s purity, or in modern terms being objectified.

Celibacy, or voluntary asexuality today (in contrast to asexuals who actually have no sex drive), is the only way to avoid this compromise. Of course, we need babies for the human species to continue, so Catholic celibacy is for the elite. But the compromise of allowing sex for common folks must be small. Sex must only happen within a Church sanctioned marriage, and it must be about procreation (or at least not artificially close off that possibility). Homosexuality, then, is an obvious abuse of sex because it can serve no other purpose than using someone for your own pleasure.

Will Neo-Victorianism become a thing?

Will progressives latch on to Halwani’s conclusion that sex is inherently wrong? If so, what specific  sexual mores will they advocate? Only time will tell.

But I have my doubts. People like sex. The Catholic Church’s strict standards failed – sometimes with horrific consequences like the recent sex abuse scandal. Nineteenth century Victorianism  didn’t succeed either.

Instead, there might be a fringe group of voluntary asexual progressives who hold themselves up as an elite, similar to vegan’s dietary strictness. But they won’t gain mass appeal. And certainly pop culture won’t embrace Neo-Victorianism – sex sells, after all.


Is There A Right to Become a Parent?

What do you do when one person’s rights conflict with someone else’s rights? You might see my alleged right as a sense of entitlement.

Your right to free speech conflicts with my right not to be offended. Your religious rights conflict with my right to marry the person I love. Your right to become a parent conflicts with my right to not become a parent without my consent.

I’ve written about boundaries on several occasions. The basic idea is that there is no right to impose yourself on others, even when the situation is heartbreaking. An op-ed piece in the New York Times asserts that a husband who agreed to have children has, upon divorce, an obligation to pay for his ex-wife’s fertility services. Calling it “alimony for your eggs,” the op-ed notes that “Her ex may have many years left to start a new family of his own, but by the time she meets a new partner, it may be too late.”

That a woman has a right to change her mind is accepted (though it took much effort to change society’s mind). Does a man also have a right to change his mind? Does a woman deserve compensation for delaying pregnancy? Or is it her choice for which she is responsible?

These are complex questions that vary for each couple and individual. Sometime a woman puts off pregnancy because she doesn’t want to have kids or doesn’t feel ready yet, because she can’t find a suitable partner, because her partner says he isn’t ready, because of her career ambitions, and so on.

Dr. Mimi C. Lee has no other chance to have children, except by using frozen embryos created with her ex-husband. He agreed to become a father when they were married, but upon divorce he withdrew his consent. But Lee is a cancer survivor in her mid-40s. That he could end her dream of motherhood seems hugely unfair.

But let’s reverse the gender roles. Sofia Vergara (from TV’s Modern Family) found herself in a legal dispute with her ex Nick Loeb, who wants to use embryos they created. Vergara wouldn’t have to be pregnant against her will – Loeb would use a surrogate. Still, a woman possibly becoming a parent against her will, even if she isn’t required to become pregnant, puts the debate in a different light.

But it shouldn’t. The issue comes down to consent. If a woman is already pregnant then it’s her body, and it’s her choice. If she wants to have the baby, but he doesn’t, then it’s an impasse and someone’s will must prevail. No one has the right to force something on her physically that she doesn’t consent to. So the man is out of luck, even if that means paying 18 years of child support.

Embryos, however, are in test tubes. Not implanting them in the woman’s body isn’t about what is being done to her. It’s about what’s not being done to her. And half the genetic material is his. The condition of pregnancy does not yet exist, and she has no right to force him into parenthood against his consent – even if he previously consented but now withdraws his consent.

The tragedy is that this might end any opportunity for some women to become a mothers. But no one, woman or man, is entitled to create a pregnancy (even with a surrogate) when the other potential parent has denied or withdrawn consent.