Re: Sexual revolution: definition, please

F Leon Wilson (
Tue, 14 May 1996 16:17:40 -0400

Before defining the sexual revolution, consider this view:

'Free love' was a way for people to buy into the various waves of the
social justice movement during the 1960's. When people of colour,
specifically Black people, was demanding 'equal rights' and the
non-violent movement was preaching 'love your adversary' many people
(particular white people) translated/co-opted that feeling/movement
into what became known as 'free love.' Since there was no higher
'love' than physical love to be found in the so-called hippie
communities and closed (segregated) communities in the suburbs and
ghettos, it reverted into physical love (sex) within their own
circles. People's time and energy was spent 'loving' (sexually) each
other and professing to have a love for all people while being firmly
limited to the social and political circles they were accustomed. The
concept of the 'sexual revolution' was the device that permitted open
sexual active to be justified by the many who were involved in or want
to be involved in the various sexual actives. Does anyone remember
the of saying, "get high, get naked and get down?" It became the
mantra for many young people of the mid to late 1960's.


F. Leon

Regarding: Sexual revolution: definition, plea: On 14 May 96 at
11:34, Sandra Hollin Flowers wrote:

[ [ [ TEXT CUT ] ] ]

> " What's confusing me is Marc Gilbert's rebuttal to Jeff, the
> following excerpt from which establishes a cause-effect
> relationstion between the "sexual revolution" of the '60s and
> "women in positions of power" today. Before I say anything else,
> let me just ask how you all--i.e., everybody who's talked about
> it--are defining "the sexual revolution."
> Sandra in Maconga
> On Fri, 10 May 1996, Marc J. Gilbert wrote:
> > The sexual revolution failed? Last time I
> > looked, I saw women in positions of power undreamt of even in the
> > sixties, but more important, I must ask who fought for the bizarre
> > definition of sexual revolution Jeff mentions in his post? Any
> > hands? No? I thought so.