Talk:Sexual revolution/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Old talk

There's a lot of stuff here that's just been added, but it seems to spread wider than the actual topic. Would I be wrong in assuming that the common understanding of the term "sexual revolution" was what happened in the sixties and seventies? Not that there wasn't history behind it, or ramafications that continue to this day, of course. --Robert Merkel

On another issue entirely, if the contributor who posted this article could get themselves a login, that would be much appreciated. You don't have to, but it makes life easier. You can use a pseudonym if you want.

Finally, is this article perhaps a little overlinked? --Robert Merkel

It seems to have a great deal about movie stars and popular singers and showing naughty bits on TV, and very little about ordinary people leading actual lives. (Of course, real patterns of sexual behaviour are much more difficult to document.) It doesn't do to underestimate the importance of mass communications and role models, of course, just the same it lacks balance as it stands.

In particular, it needs to be informed with more awareness of the way that social forces interact: for example: Beautiful women and extremely handsome men were rigorously selected to become Movie Stars is clear enough and reasonable on a surface level, but misses the more subtle underlying point: that the faces and bodies selected to become movie stars and models, simply by being selected, come to define what "beauty" is.

On the other hand the new section does document the "public Hollywood face" of the sexual revolution, and is useful for that reason. Perhaps it might be better titled "The American Mass Media and the Sexual Revolution", or something like that. Or perhaps, by telling half a story, it will stimulate others to filll in the gaps. Tannin 13:10 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)

It's my sense as a reader that some claims made in this article are hyperbolic and/or "pop history". For example, "The mother's breast was the source of all later erotic sensation" hardly makes any sense at all, let alone being something written by Freud, and Wilhelm Reich was no anarchist; the section on Playboy takes Playboy's own public relations point of view, while the claim that 'The feminist movement started with cries of "burn the bra"' is long-discredited hyperbole. DSatz 03:52, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the part about Freud is ridiculous, including the part where it calls it just a "science" with quotes, and the idea that it has been completely discredited.

I have attempted to copyedit this rambling rant by our anonymous friend of superfluous spaces so that it might be readable enough for a serious edit with an eye toward NPOV. I was sorely tempted to shear off large portions of text, but it does hit some areas which should be covered, such as contraception and the Kinsey studies.

Have a go; I'm not up to it. You'll laugh; you'll cry; you'll tear your hair. This is, in my opinion, definitely a candidate for Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense.

Hephaestos 06:34 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)

The sensuous woman

Sexual revolution#The Nonfiction Sex Manuals gives the title

The Way to Become The Sensuous Woman

but my source lists as the '72 edn

The sensuous woman; the first how-to book for the female who yearns to be all woman, by J.

(with the author name included as part of the title, BTW). Could it be that the words "The Way to Become" decorated the cover (but perhaps not the spine, title page, or CIP data on the copyright page) of one or more editions?


Closely related to this, i'm now questioning the edit i just did, supplying the name "Joan Garrity" for "J"; John & Terry Garrity authored a book abt J's experience, and this suggests that "Terry" is yet another name for "J". --Jerzy(t) 17:54, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)

Ah!

Total loving : how to love and be loved for the rest of your life / [i.e. J. T. Garrity]. Garrity, Terry. c1977. Simon and Schuster, ...`

1990's topics, should be moved elsewhere

I've taken the liberty of removing these irrelevant paragraphs from the 60's sexual revolution. Assuming (and I wouldn't) they're not already heavily covered elsewhere, maybe someone or the original author wishes to find them a home in another article? --Steverapaport 23:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Internet and cybers3x

The rise of the Internet and the usage of computers by young children in huge numbers has caused alarm that the vast amounts of sexually explicit material online is a threat to society. Internet companies provide filters, but this has not stopped young and old from seeking out sex on the World Wide Web. A new phenomenon of cybersex in chatrooms and via instant messaging has become popular. This is similar to the rise of phone sex and "adult" videocassettes where another modern invention is put to use in the age of the sexual revolution.

"Monicagate" and The Starr Report

President Bill Clinton faced impeachment in 1998 based on the Starr Report, stemming from a stream of sexual acts he denied. The names Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, and Monica Lewinsky have become ingrained in the public consciousness as symbols of free-wheeling sex, yet the public took it all in stride. This is perhaps an excellent illustration of how greatly attitudes have really changed.

external link to the Starr Report also removed, I'm sure that can be found again... :-)

The pill was replaced by the condom in 1980

...this was news to me :-) You mean all those women started eating a condom a day?

Or just that they all overnight stopped taking birth control pills and forced their lovers to wear condoms? Either way it must have happened in an alternate universe. I've rewritten that bit, but keep in mind that the subject is "Free Love" under "Sexual Revolution", not "Birth Control Methods recommended by popular media".

Steverapaport 16:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sexual Drive

Is there any article like sexual drive or similar 'coz I'd be interested to add sexual drive in India sometimes later. --Rrjanbiah 14:52, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Moved from Talk: History of Sex

If this is relevant, then great. I found that Wikipedia is entering slowly into my school life. When choosing an essay title from a bunch of about 15, I saw one about the "Sexual Revolution", and picked that one cos History of sex was a cotw candidate. So I can offer u a timeline, my source being l'histoire, no. 277 June 2003, an apparently reputed magazine used in my école supérieur as refernce material. So here's a timeline of "sexuality of women", which applies only for France I'm afraid:

Remember, this is only about France

a french intervention

Hello, excuse my intervention, but I think this section (at the bottom) is historically wrong. The link between French Revolution of 1789 and sexual revolution is not existant or as much that the link between Boston Tea Party and sexual revolution :-)

The erroneous section : The power of religion as wielded by the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches of Europe was radically undermined by the French Revolution of 1789 which saw the First Estate the clergy and the Second Estate made up of the ancien regime (nobles) give way to the power of the Third Estate of the peasants and bourgeoisie which surged towards a secular way of life. It was this kind of Marxism and psychoanalysis that set up the main idea that capitalism demanded much self-restraint and the bourfeoisie had forged on idenity around the confinement of sexuality within the private domain of the heterosexual family. 82.237.72.231 23:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's one problem with the text, another is that it somehow connects Marxism and psychoanalysis with the revolution, probably as some sort of attempt at "reductio ad hitlerum" argument for "self-restraint" within a heterosexual family. I don't see how it could possibly be corrected, so I'll delete it, as it is obvious nonsense. Perhaps the first sentence could be reinstated if it actually made a relevant point.

Needs rewording

First para: ...which allowed women to engage in sexual intercourse, without the previously inevitable consequence of becoming pregnant. This is wrong and misleading: condoms have been around since before the pill.

Hence this needs rewording, but not my field... so how about ...which allowed women to take control of their own contraception in an easy and convenient way ?

  • Also, pregnancy is anything but inevitable. A lot of women seek medical help to become pregnant, and I'd say this is a slap in the face for them.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

  • "This would have made it extremely difficult to cover up pre-martial relations due to extremely high risk of pregnancy."

This is better but statistically speaking, how 'extremely high' is the risk of pregnancy? Seems like somewhat of a sweeping statement.

Edward123 20:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Date of sexual revolution

Thurber & White in their book Is Sex Necessary?, published in 1929, has a chapter titled The Sexual Revolution: Being a Rather Complete Survey of the Entire Sexual Scene. One gathers that "the sexual revolution" was already a cliche in 1929.

  • Well, sure. That was the Roaring Twenties. Then everything was put on hold for the depression and the war and when the boys came home the emphasis was on convincing Rosie the Riveter to go home and attend to kueche, kirche, kinder. But, yes, between the twenties and the fifties you read a lot in novels about thus-and-such-a-character being a "modern American woman," implying a degree of sexual autonomy. Nevertheless... the, uh, seminal event was The Pill. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah. So we can just discount the evidence then? That's a relief. Evidence always mucks up a good pop-history.

Date of sexual revolution = "Die sexuelle Revolution in der Sovjetunion" (Berlin, 1925), compilation of the works of Grigory Abramovich Batkis (Soviet medical hygienist, 1895—1960). The title was given by publishers. — Konstantin Dushenko, “Slovar’ sovremennych zitat” (“A dictionnary of modern quotations”), Moscou, 2006, p.630. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.197.113.41 (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that a Wikipedia article "Is Sex Necessary? Or, Why You Feel the Way You Do" has been written, I suggest that reference 5 be updated to link to it. I'd do it myself, but I don't know how... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.248.94 (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Cause of Sexual Revolution

From CQ Researcher: "And while many analysts have long blamed the birth-control pill for triggering the “sexual revolution,” some now doubt the connection. “Contrary to popular belief, the sexual revolution” did not “start in the 1960s,” writes University of Florida historian Alan Petigny. Based on census data on single motherhood and premarital pregnancy, Petigny concludes that premarital sex in the United States increased fastest between 1940 and 1960 — before the pill was introduced.

The number of babies born to single mothers during that 20-year period rose from 7.1 per 1,000 women of childbearing age to 21.6 — a much steeper increase than occurred post-pill, according to Petigny. And “the apparent surge in single motherhood is all the more remarkable when one considers that the '50s was a time when couples were exchanging wedding vows at ever-earlier ages.”

Petigny suggests that World War II — when many young women entered the work force and gained independence for the first time — was a greater force in liberalizing sexual behavior than access to birth control."

CQ is talking about "Alan Petigny, “Illegitimacy, Postwar Psychology, and the Reperiodization of the Sexual Revolution,” Journal of Social History, fall 2004."

This calls into question the article's short blurb which cites the pill as the starter of the sexual revolution. I believe that the article should be edited to include this viewpoint, which was first espoused in a scientific journal, and backed up with some evidence. Perhaps this new viewpoint requires research. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.57.238.40 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

The sexual revolution and modern feminism were no doubt influenced by the spouse gap. Males mature in important ways somewhat later than females. Mid-Twentieth Century western societies had a tradition and an economic reality that family finances depended more on the income of the husband than of the wife. A woman could marry as soon as she could find a husband who could support the children she might bear, while a man didn't want a wife until he could afford a family. Wives typically are a couple of years younger then their spouses. The baby boomers were considerly more numerous than the previous age cohort, so that when its women became old enough to look for a mate there wasn't an adequate supply of men ready to settle down with them. Many of their male age-mates were non-productive hippies or off in the armed services. So what was a girl to do? She adopted self-support, the pill, liberated sexuality, and the feminist attitueds appropriate to such a course. --Pring

I disagree with the above - There were enough men around for the single women in the 1960s and 1970s to marry, only a small proportion of the baby boomer population cohort were involved in the Vietnam war or members of the counter-culture. Women started to change their behaviour mainly due to the fact that economic expansion gave them many more opportunities to work and live independently of men. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.73.150.130 (talk) 13:13, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

this article is horrendous

It doesn't clearly say wheter or not the revolution was about more sex or less sex. The first paragraph metions the question of sex being a necessity or not, but then the rest of the artical says more sex occured, im very confused.

there's nothing to be confused about, sex became banal and western moral and/or culture went to a hole. literally. (i couldn't miss that one, but yeah it screwed up the world and that's why the asians and arabs will eat us alive i the next decades)
Moreover, it fails to point out the possible destruction of the family unit. The corporate media flaunts sex, promising oblivious viewers happiness upon receiving it. They merely use it as a tool to gain revenue, and depict it as a recreational sport rather than an expression of true love within the confines of marriage. I’m not religious, but fornication is wrong on the basis that sex is our divine creator’s gift to mankind, serving as a means to create a new life with love. Again, the media actively promotes sexual promiscuity by airing programs such as “Sex in the City” and other nonsense. I’m all for a full rollback of this so-called revolution, while returning to a time of conservatism unseen in the United States since the early 1950s. More or less, I think the sex topic should be confined to a private setting, not broadcasted on TV.
P.S. This article is too sympathetic to its subject, and needs to be balanced by adding a section that criticizes the sexual revolution and why. Thus, that is why the NPOV was added.
I agree that the article should give some coverage to criticism of the sexual revolution. However, a 'section that criticizes the sexual revolution' (as opposed to describing notable criticism) would be a bad idea.
As per WP:NPOV: "Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in." This article should certainly acknowledge notable critics of the sexual revolution and indicate what their arguments against it are, but the article itself should not be arguing either for or against it, as a whole or in a section. --Calair 07:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm unsure of how to correct it, but the last line of "Sex and Medicine seems highy biased against the sexual revolution, and seems to argus that it is destroying appropriate vaues. Be this as it may, I think it violates NPOV. How do other peope feel about this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.67.252.128 (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC).
It also seems self-contradictory - the previous one says that Baby Boomers experimented with sex out of marriage, this one starts by saying that the 'pendulum' is swinging back (implying less sex outside marriage?) but then goes on to say that the response has not been a return to monogamy. The whole section needs to be beaten with the verifiability stick :-) --Calair 03:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah this article really is terrible. it was clearly written by a hippie feminist trying to absolve the sexual revolution of any of the problems that it caused. Gtbob12 (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Problems? People have been having sex since the Bible: STDs,pornography,abortion,etc. have always existed. Not talking about sex causes more problems than the alternative. I should know: I was born out of wedlock in the 50s; it was kept hidden then, but wouldn't be now.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opusv5 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Clothes

Wouldn't change in clothes, such as spread of miniskirts, be part of the sexual revolution? This could yield some nice pictures - this article has too few of those.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Language of Love showing the first real sex act on film innaccurate

The article claims that Language of Love showed the first real sex act on film. This is inaccurate. While it may be the first real sex act in a more mainsteam product, sex was filmed as early as film became available (called the "Stag film"). Although not mainstream, Stan Brakhage's experimental films also showed him having sex with his wife such as in Dog Star Man (1962) and Wedlock House: An Intercourse (1959). As such, I've changed the wording to reflect Language as being the first mainstream instance of a real sex act, though this may not necessarily be true either. // Montag 15:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Notes and References

"A Look at the Sexual Revolution in the United States" comes from an Abstinence-Only education site, from www.citizenlink.org, and it is very biased. I think this should be used as a reference in a section that outlines Christian/conservative reaction to the sexual revolution, rather than as a source for the whole thing. Crosscanyon 00:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite?

I suggest this article be completely rewritten.


NantucketNoon (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Instincts have rationality

Compare a passing meeting to 30 years of marriage: 30 years of being the closest adult in your life. That is 1 day compared to 30 years which is about 1 : 10 000. No wonder that we react strongly to the possibility of getting a partner that would suit us!InsectIntelligence (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Naming of the article

Don’t you think a more specific name for this article, like 1960’s-1970’s Western Sexual Revolution would be more appropriate? I'm asking this because if we focus this specific time-space location, we should write a more focused text and topics, since for example any archeologist can claim that China had a "sexual revolution" during the Ming Dinasty, or a sociologist can say that in the Molucas Islands a "sexual revolution" is happening right now; but most of people, when asked what was most generally recognized as the “Sexual Revolution”, answer that it was a event recognized with the Western World of the sixties and seventies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.27.77.254 (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Pornographic images

Please refrain from adding pornography to Wikipedia. My teenagers use this site to help with their assignments, and they don't need to see that kind of smut. Thanks. --Levi18:22 (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored.Jame§ugrono 03:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Levi, Wikipedia records the facts and is not a message board where individuals vent religious bigotry on the basis of any sexual guilt you might personally harbor from images of nudity. You should not presume that everyone else looks on nudity as pornographic! This image is not direct frontal and one can see such images freely exhibited in any mainstream bookstore. If you remove this image three times you are in conflict with Wikipedia rules concerning vandalism. Kind regards Mombas (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Levi, why would your teenagers be studying sexual revolution? May I suggest that your motivation in this instance be purely POV. Mombas (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I Agree with Levi. We're learning about this in History as part of hippie culture from the 1960s, we don't need porn coming up. And, Censored or not, I think wikipedia should still be tasteful. If you want to fight censorship you should be putting Muhammad's picture on his page. Joesolo13 (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent Reversions

Over the last week or so, there's been a removal of an image, then a reversion of that removal, then a reversion of that reversion. My first thought was to re-revert, but I really don't see what the point of the image is. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have it, but before anyone goes to revert the change once again, some discussion would be nice. I'd like to establish what the image adds to the educational/encyclopaedic value of this article.

The removal and removal-reversion-reversion was performed by User:Levi18:22, and the removal-reversion was performed by an anonymous editor. I've already contacted User:Levi18:22 about WP:CENSOR issues, but have yet to receive a reply. Any input on the image would be greatly appreciated - I'd like to find out what it is that makes the image worth keeping in this article. Jame§ugrono 10:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect, this article is about the sexual revolution and according to the second lead paragraph of the article this revolution essentially happened in the 1960s and 1970s. This photo is from a public festival held in the 1970s where thousands of people reacting to the changes of perception in sexuality, got up and got naked. Remarkably no one took much notice except for the perverted minded who would interpret such an image as pornography. As I have already pointed out, if this were a frontal image displaying genitals then perhaps in the public interest it may be questionable. However, this image is essentially quite tame and similar images can be seen in any book-store or newsagent. If one becomes aroused by it then I would suggest that the problem lies in their perception and they should seek counseling. The person who is responsible for removing the image is also removing it from the main sourced article Nambassa which amongst other facets was an event archiving the 1970s revolutionary era. I speculate that the person removing this image is motivated by religious conviction, and his/her censorship in this instance is as absurd as me going into Wikipedias Christian articles and removing the main body of information about Christ based upon some personal belief that I might hold, that Christianity given its vicious history, can not possibly be the church of Christ, and so is non other than a gross misrepresentation of Jesus..Mombas (talk) 08:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph for deletion

May I suggest that the paragraph beginning with "Counter forces" and ending in "the same old morals" be either completely deleted, or rewritten and moved to a seperate heading at the base of the article, eg "opposition to sexual revolution". Its content is nothing more than self-righteous personal opinion with little to do with the subject of Sexual revolution! Mombas (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies on criticism say that it shouldn't be confined in separate sections. What you call "self-righteous personal opinion" is a spread opinion in literature and it is well sourced. Do more homeworks, Mombas :-) --SummerWithMorons (talk) 10:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you would be so kind as to show me this policy. Take another look at how this paragraph is written and where it’s positioned. Perhaps you would like to move it to the bottom of the first block of paragraphs. The main article is about sexual revolution but this paragraph is suggesting there wasn’t one. That’s fine by me; however give the main article an opportunity in the first instance to establish itself. I think this might improve the whole thing; after all this article has already been tagged a disaster in need of a clean up. Incidentally, did you have a bad summer? Mombas (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, the last paragraph in the first block needs to be deleted as well. It does not even make any sense and is without one iota of support. Mombas (talk) 11:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Myth? Without basis?

The perception that all hippies were excessively promiscuous and the sexual revolutionary era was an uncontrolled orgy of group sex is a myth without basis.

Is it NPOV? I don't think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.8.227.120 (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above. That sentence is among many other portions of this article that are POV, lack any citations whatsoever in support of the statements made, and that read more like an essay in defense of the sexual revolution than they do like an encyclopedia entry. This article needs a major overhaul.

SCBC (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Viagra?

It says in the article "New drugs like Viagra helped impotent men have an erection and increased the potency of others." However though, this article talks about the Sexual Revolution of the 60s and 70s - Viagra wasn't patented until 1996 and approved for public use until 1998. MegaZega93 (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sexual rights of minors

The words "Teenagers assumed their right to a sexual life with whomever they please" are competely wrong. Relationships between adults and teenagers (below the age of consent) are fully criminalized, and i don't know why moderators prefer to hide that well-known fact

I tried to add the text

"Teenager sexuality is still an object of a hard social conflict. Relationships between adults and teenagers (below the age of consent) are fully criminalized, and there is a trend to criminalize even a consentual sex between two teenagers in some states in US. Many children registered as sex offenders for "sexual abuse" against minors of the same age. There are also some recent cases when underage girls were put in prison for taking nude photos of theirselves [1]"

the moderator delete it as "inconstructive" whithout particular exlanation Let us discuss this edition

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.24.224.15 (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ A RSOL movement http://reformsexoffenderlaws.org

Sexual revolution caused by lack of religion, or too much open discussion?

Here's another bit of tendentious nonsense I've removed for now:


The sexual revolution was principally caused by a series of events that saw the breakdown of traditional Biblical morality as practiced in Christianity, Judaism, and also Islam.
In the past hundred years, sex came to be more explicitly discussed in books, music, and other media, with the publication of guides to sexual techniques. Sexual topics that were previously considered unsuitable for discussion, such as oral sex, orgasm, and homosexuality, were openly talked about.

Sexual revolution was caused by capitalism; Sex sells! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.87.136.104 (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Minors as Sex offenders - "sexual abuse" against minors of the same age

The story of underage US girls being registered as sex offenders for "sexual abuse" after taking nude photos of themselves has been portraited as an example of bizarre US policy on this in several European newspapers.--Nemissimo (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Pedophile revolution

In recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of public cases involving sexual activity by pedophiles. Some scholars have argued that this explosion of pedophile behavior is ultimately a belated consequence of the 1960s sexual revolution. Ther article ought to provide adequate sources on the alleged relationship between the sexual revolution, the growth of the international sex trade and the apparent rise of the sexual abuse of minors. ADM (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Please present any reliable sources before this POV is further explored. -- Banjeboi 04:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Here is one notable source. *hxxp://www.nambla.org/pederasty.htm* ADM (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
In the interest of preserving the discussion and preventing the blacklisted link from interfering with future editing, I have mangled the link in the prior line. I would not object to a more thorough removal, if other editors felt that appropriate. Rwessel (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
And while we’re at this, I’ve left the blacklist tag on the page to see if Cyberbot II removes it correctly, and I’m not sure Cyberbot II is supposed to be tagging talk namespace pages anyway. Rwessel (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Reliable. Not notable. I don't think NAMBLA works. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 05:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Good to know where this "research" is coming from though. -- Banjeboi 05:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"The films eventually helped the publics attitudes toward sex progress, especially in Sweden and other northern European countries, which today tend to be more sexually liberal than others."

That's pretty much original research. I'm from Greece, and I know the reason this country is slightly less liberal in sex is that 80%+ of its citizens believe in god. I don't think that's the case in several other countries. PLUS, several of its films were liberal too. --94.70.105.152 (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

i.e. I don't think just a film or a series of films does that, it's just part of the package. you have to have the accompanying culture too. --94.70.105.152 (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Minor change to lead

I added the normalisation of homosexuality and "alternative forms of sexuality" to the lead, since they are later outcomes of the legacy of this cultural tide. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No References

This article needs substantially more references. Most of the sections lack a single reference, and most section contain controversial claims that require references. --Zfish118 (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I am removing the article's "B" rating, at least until the references situation is corrected. Criteria 1 for a "B" is adequate sources. As described here, the project uses the Version 1 Editorial Assessment. --Zfish118 (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sexual_revolution/Archive_1&oldid=1146765302"