Talk:Sexual revolution

There was a sexual revolution in the 50s? Where? --Emmeline 14:01, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I think the writer means it had its roots in ideas developed in the 50s? It would be much more appropriate to say 60s and 70s, though. Human 15:15, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

References that do not support the statement

The statement

Kinsey claimed that 10% of American men were homosexual. He used faulty statistical sampling methods to baffle the unsophisticated.^{[Citation Needed]}

is followed by two references. Although both of the references make many unflattering statements about Kinsey, neither of them says anything about his statistical sampling methods. The statement should be supported by a reference that analyzes his statistical methodology. To say that his statistical sampling methods must be faulty because he was an unpleasant person is a very pure example of argument ad hominem. Dpbsmith 15:20, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Just to clarify, since I see that User:Suricou removed the statement. I don't like the statement as Ed phrased it. Apart from the question of what he said was true of 10% of the population, which Suricou clarified I believe there is a case to be made that Kinsey's sampling methodology wasn't good enough to produce quantitatively accurate percentages. So if Ed or someone else wants to say something about faulty statistics, that's OK with me but it a) needs to be supported, b) by a reference that addresses that question, not some other question.

Now, as for the references, which I see were added by RobS. They are both traceable to the same source, a Dr. Judith Reisman, who says that Kinsey and his associates had many repellent sexual abnormalities. They are both reported by distinctly conservative websites. If RobS wants to add a statement to the effect that "Psychologist Judith Reisman says thus-and-such" about Kinsey, that's OK too, as long as it's carefully qualified so that the reader can make a judgement about credibility. I'd like to see it attributed to "Conservative psychologist Judith Reisman" actually. Dpbsmith 15:54, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Direction of the article

We don't need to justify Kinsey - that's a separate issue in itself. And the role of condoms and the Pill was overblown: these merely greased the gears that were already turning.

It's the attitude which underlies the sexual revolution which needs more exposition. Also, we need to detail the consequences.

• the deep unhappiness experienced by girls (and often boys) who give up their virginity to sexual experimentation - instead of "saving it for marriage"
• the divorce culture, and the terrible toll it takes on children (see Children of divorce)
• the prison of self-centered promiscuous homosexual activity (it's not because of societal disapproval, because the murder-suicide-addiction rate is sky high even in "gay" enclaves such as San Francisco, Greenwich Village, and Provincetown, Massachusetts).

The homosexual agenda to destroy marriage cuts to the heart of this, and its unholy alliance with radical Feminism should also be explored. --Ed Poor 16:05, 8 May 2007 (EDT)