The Case Against the Sexual Revolution
tarahenley.substack.com
Jul 27, 2022 • 39M
The Case Against the Sexual Revolution
My conversation with British columnist, activist and author Louise Perry
Appears in this episode
Tara Henley
Conversations with heterodox authors and journalists from around the world, asking the questions that are not being asked.
Episode details
6 comments
Since the sexual revolution, women’s lives have undergone dramatic changes. The dominant narrative is that liberal feminism has freed women in profound ways. So why does data show that women’s happiness has actually declined?
My guest on the podcast today argues that the sexual revolution has, in fact, failed women.
Louise Perry is a British writer and activist. She’s a columnist at The New Statesmen and a features writer for The Daily Mail. Her brilliant debut is called The Case Against the Sexual Revolution: A New Guide to Sex in the 21st Century.
I’m thrilled to have Louise Perry as my guest — today, on Lean Out. Transcript to come tomorrow for paid subscribers.
The Case Against the Sexual Revolution
Here is how I frame the situation... and it transcends the women's right movement and covers almost everything where activists exist.
If you think about a Western system of democratic free expression, the founding vision for this is that people would lead a regular life and periodically take time off from that life to agitate for a cause or serve in politics or government.
Causes are supposed to be projects. A project is defined as a temporary endeavor with a goal of achieving a final outcome. Once the outcome is achieved, the project ends and the project participants filter back to their regular lives.
What has happened is that politics, activism and government has become a career for millions of people. The reason is that government has grown too large and takes up too much of our GDP. The cohort of people making money off this are essentially looters. They don't produce any marketable goods and services that form the base of economic growth. Instead they feed off that base by farming the issues around them. And thus they have a conflict of interest between the solving of the issues and making a living off the issues.
The women's right movement achieved most if not all of its intended goals and yet it would not stop. It would not stop because of the people that had embedded themselves in the money-making enterprise of the movement. These people have a conflict of interest that motivates them, in desperation, to keep pushing... even inventing new issues that otherwise would not exist.
We see similar problems with many other topics where there is a cohort of non-profits, attorneys and writers all dependent on the perpetuation of the cause so they can build their bank accounts.
These people no longer really care about the outcome... they care about their livelihood. And so the movement degrades and starts actually doing damage to the original cause.
It is a sticky problem without any easy solution other than people waking up to combat the destructive direction of the perpetual professional activists. Articles like this are an example.
""My guest on the podcast today argues that the sexual revolution has, in fact, failed women ""if it has failed women it has failed men as well , we all lose