the key sentence.
“Yet being allowed to “distinguish between sex and love and her needs for both,” as Brown put it back when that freedom felt out of reach for a woman, has not stopped the kind of abuses that have inflamed #MeToo.”
It’s important to fully appreciate what “love” means in this quote. The author likely assumes “love” to mean emotional experience, expression or attachment. If you expand the word properly beyond the current frame of American expressive individualism it means whole life commitment for the wellbeing of the other. In other words something knocking on the door of marriage.
It is essentially the undoing of what Christianity wrought in the the disintegration of the Roman Empire. The Jews brought a very different vision of sexuality which can be seen even in those passages of the OT law that we tend to find offensive. Sex connects in a deep, ontological way.
Roman and Greek sexuality were basically masculine and the women suffered for it. The goal of their world was the same as the bathhouse but, as we all know. men want release and also like women so…
In the bathhouse there is no scarcity of supply to satisfy demand. It is analogous to so many other new features of our world. When we are concerned about “what to eat” we mean it in entirely different way that nearly everyone who lived just a few generations ago. Women are the ones that introduce scarcity into the marketplace of sex. Men propose and women dispose.
By noticing the lack of scarcity you should notice something foundational about male sexuality, it is impersonal. It is about the biology of the release. Oral, handjob, etc. it does not matter. Frank Schafer’s “Crazy for God” focuses on the religious oddities of his parents while being blithe about all of his mutual masturbation happening in the community of boys. These men were not gay, they were horny.
What women bring to the market is the idea of the sacred. To the man anything will do until the ubiquity of surplus leads one naturally down the road to keeper and keeper kink as abundance leads to boredom. The woman resists objectification because for her sex is personal, individual, all about attachment.
Any evolutionary biologist will tell you the story to explicate the difference between men and women, which is why they are so often at the forefront of resisting the great binary blur.
Now perhaps one might say that in this brave new world we ought to not only uncouple sex from love but also continue to uncouple it from reproduction. Place reproduction into the hands of experts and out of the laps of horny youngsters. Let the men get off all they want and the ladies find other less handsy ladies to cuddle and nurture with. At some point, however, you should not that we have departed from a story that is as old as we are and that this might have consequences far beyond what we might think.
I like this paragraph in the first Dreher piece and I agree. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/stonewall-gift-sexual-revolution-lgbt/
As I’ve said in this space many times, the gay marriage campaign succeeded so thoroughly and so rapidly in large part because it built on what heterosexuals had already come to believe was true about sex and marriage. Gay marriage was inevitable, because straights had already queered sex and marriage via the Sexual Revolution. Yet gay marriage was a Rubicon for our society because it took those radical shifts past the breaking point, and locked them in to law and culture. All that followed was predictable, and it was in fact predicted, not because anybody had a crystal ball, but because it made logical sense.
Male sexual desire and lust is such that to say “only within consenting adults” is to put up no guardrail whatsoever. Consenting adults are capable of “consenting” in the heat of the moment, or at certain points over a lifetime of degraded and relentless mental and cultural grooming, to raping and being raped, to risking death to oneself or one’s sexual partners, to deliberately infecting others and/or deliberately, even fetishistically, exposing oneself to infection with anything and everything; to mutilating one’s body or somebody else’s body — to anything. To foster and normalize and promote an adult lifetime of “uninhibited” promiscuous multipartner sex is effectively to throw “consent” out the window. It cannot be done. People are human beings, they are not superhuman or machines, and you *will* break down in spots, in places, over time, you *will* find that your will fails you, that the evil part of you (and we all have that within us that is evil, all of us, somewhere) overwhelms you in some places.