1,893 words 
Stephen Baskerville
The New Politics of Sex: The Sexual Revolution, Civil Liberties, & the Growth of Governmental Power
Kettering, Ohio: Angelico Press, 2017
Shortly after I graduated from high school, a young woman of my acquaintance fell pregnant. This was a scandal, of course, but the more alarming part of the situation was the fact that the father of the baby acknowledged paternity but refused to marry. The reason: when he was a boy, his mother had initiated a nasty divorce and he didn’t wish to go through such a thing himself. No male relation of the girl in question even attempted to persuade the young man to see to his duty. They quietly shrugged.
The young man was right. When I reconnected with the woman years later, she was on a third marriage and had two children with as many fathers. The young man’s attitude was unthinkable prior to the 1960s, but quietly tolerated later because the sexual revolution’s logic was apparent when this sordid affair occurred in the early 1990s. If you don’t marry, then she can’t divorce you.
Yes, she can’t divorce you. The divorce revolution is entirely fueled by women. It’s a sub-function of the wider sexual revolution. How the sexual revolution works as well as its political impacts are described in detail by Stephen Baskerville in his 2017 book The New Politics of Sex. Baskerville also wrote the 2007 classic Taken into Custody, which was reviewed by Counter-Currents’ F. Roger Devlin.
Before proceeding too far into this review, I wish to state upfront that Baskerville doesn’t mention much about the “civil rights” revolution. He does mention Title IX — a follow-up, feminist-inspired piece of law to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This is a bit of an oversight; it’s forgivable since Baskerville is focusing on the politics of sex rather than race, but they are related. The 1964 Civil Rights Act is an illicit second constitution. It is written in such a way that any group that can successfully be analogized as Africans in the American South between 1880 and 1954 are eventually empowered by this act. Additionally, in the same way that all persons must claim “civil rights” is an unqualified good to maintain one’s social standing, so too is it with the sexual revolution.
If the 1964 Civil Rights Act is the foundation for the negatives of the sexual revolution, “no-fault” divorce is its central pillar. “No-fault” divorce was initiated throughout the states in the middle 1960s, often by conservatives such as then-California Governor Ronald Reagan. There was little pushback to this change, even among socially conservative Christians. This law appears to give a couple in an unhappy marriage the ability to separate without loss of honor.
Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana (D) was a major supporter of “civil rights,” feminism, and an author of Title IX. He was one of the senators targeted and defeated by Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority in the 1980 election. There is a case to be made that the rise of the “Religious Right” was a reaction to the many problems caused by the “civil rights” revolution.
Unfortunately, bolting without loss of honor was not what happened. The problem is that the new “sexual revolution” doesn’t take into account the natural arrangement upon which sex and marriage are based. To explain, marriage is an arrangement where a woman agrees to have a man’s children in exchange for his financial support. In other words, marriage acknowledges the fact that men and money connect and women bear and nurture children.
Additionally, marriage allows more children to be born since the couple doesn’t have to go out and do mate-seeking. Baskerville further argues that,
The purpose of marriage is not procreation but fatherhood: marriage allows children to have fathers. Marriage turns a man from a sperm donor into a parent and thus creates paternal authority, allowing a man to exercise the authority over children that otherwise would be exercised by the mother alone. Feminists understand this when they renounce marriage as an institution of “patriarchy” and promote single motherhood and divorce as positive goods for their own sake. Instead of recognizing this truth, conservative sentimentalists labor the cliché that marriage exists to civilize men and control their promiscuity. If so, that is part of a larger function: to protect the father-child bond and with it the intact family. [1]
In other words, marriage gives legal strength to the natural Darwinian impulse that biological fathers have to protect and mentor their children. Families headed by the biological father have little to no child abuse and are on a more sound economic footing.
You Can buy F. Roger Devlin’s Sexual Utopia in Power here
With “no-fault” divorce this natural arrangement is upended. There is now a divorce industry. This industry is fueled by the natural impulse — suppressed by traditional marriage — that women have to take on a new lover when her baby is old enough to walk.
This industry cannot reform itself. Its customers are women seeking a divorce. Any judge or other legal potentate which sides with the father over the mother risks destroying the customer base foundation upon which the industry is based. Meanwhile, the industry rests upon a false narrative; that men are abandoning their families on their own. Baskerville writes,
While examples can be found of anything, no evidence indicates the ongoing crisis of fathers abandoning their children. It is now very clear that it has been driven throughout by policies and agencies rooted in feminist ideology. Single mothers are not being, and have never been, thrown into poverty by absconding men; they are choosing it because it offers precisely the “sexual freedom” that is feminism’s seminal urge, regardless of the consequences for their children and society. [2]
With an empowered divorce industry backed by the bayonets of the state, men who have a faithless wife but done no wrong are put through a court-sponsored system that separates them from the home that they own, takes their money to provide child support, and makes fathers criminals.
Once the children are separated from their natural fathers, they are at the mercy of their mother and her new lover. It is under this new arrangement that child abuse truly occurs. In his 2006 book The Murderer Next Door: Why the Mind is Designed to Kill, Professor David M. Buss found that the single greatest factor of child abuse or murder in the home was the presence of a stepfather instead of a natural father. The divorce industry hides this fact by combining the male lovers of the mother with biological fathers in the abuse statistics.
As a consequence of the above, there is a secondary industry — that of women prosecutors seeking to end “child abuse.” The most powerful of these crusaders was the late Janet Reno, former US Attorney General. In many ways, she is the perfect embodiment of feminism as shaped by the sexual revolution: She was childless and had no sexual allure. She was powerful, but lacking wisdom and judgment. She came upon the center stage politically during a moral panic in the 1980s surrounding alleged abuse of children at various daycare centers. Since that time, nearly all of those convicted during that panic have had their convictions overturned.
Indeed, the panic was a problem caused by the logical ends of feminism. Women were encouraged to work outside the home. Many came to work in the childcare industry. Their entry into the workforce decreased wages while increasing costs such as childcare. The children were outside the control of their natural parents and people suspected the worst and then had their fears confirmed by an overzealous feminist in authority. Those in her path suffered. Indeed, the fiery debacle at Waco was launched under the guise of “saving the children.”
US Attorney General Janet Reno’s career can be summed up as power with no wisdom. Her career was spotted with disasters launched under the pretense that she was “saving children.”
Baskerville argues that conservatives collude with feminists ideologues. Because of this situation, there are all sorts of contradictions and problems. For example, women are “playing soldier” in the military. This situation requires enormous infrastructure to unsuccessfully keep them from being raped, while at the same time, America doesn’t win wars. Meanwhile, the military profession is saddled with political correctness and shallow thinking. This is a problem brought on because to be promoted, one must support the charade of “civil rights.”
The militant homosexual movement is also a big problem, and its power grows from “civil rights”-empowered feminist ideology. The progression of homosexual liberation is as follows:
- First, gay activists come out of the closet;
- Second, they demand their “rights”;
- Third, they demanded that everyone recognize those “rights”;
- Fourth, they want to strip away the rights of those who oppose them;
- Fifth, they want to put those who oppose their “rights” into the closet. [3]
While there is probably a group evolutionary advantage to homosexual men in the big picture, there are some big drawbacks to militant homosexuality as it is currently applied. First, homosexual ideologues empower black criminality through their shared dependence on the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Second, homosexual liberation caused the AIDS epidemic. Third, militant homosexuals encourage the suppression of obvious objective truth when people must accept transsexuals. Finally, their social victories prohibit public control of sexual matters. Indeed, the homosexual movement encourages bureaucrats and other civic officials to forego any independent analysis or thought — a very dangerous development indeed.
Sexual activity isn’t really a private matter. Sex is how the next generation comes about. Furthermore, all heterosexual sex outside of marriage will come to be seen, especially by the woman, as illicit. Hence the “hook up” culture at universities comes with the following rape hysteria.
Additionally, marriage policy is important. Marriage outside of one man and one woman, ideally for life, means that people won’t find partners. For every gay couple that marries, there are two women of the same social class who cannot find a husband. Additionally, acceptance of polygamy follows acceptance of homosexuality and it really matters — polygamous societies are all unstable and filled with violence. The State of Utah is troubled by boys sent adrift from their communities when they hit puberty. The next pending disaster from militant homosexuality is a bloody war launched against an able foe to advance homosexual liberation.
The biggest drawback of the sexual revolution is the suppression of white birth rates. Indeed, one might suspect that a hostile elite may deliberately endorse feminism to damage whites. In the 2016 movie The Red Pill, a Gender Studies Professor named Michael Kimmel asks rhetorically: “Is the men’s rights movement really the gendered version of the white nationalist movement?” The movie determines that this is not the case, but I believe there is some truth to this. Should feminism’s reign of terror end, problems that span child abuse to economic inefficiency will end, and the white birthrate will increase. Indeed, increasing white births could very well turn everything around. Young white men with IQs above 120 not yet born could very well lead our society to the stars.
If you want to support our work, please send us a donation by going to our Entropy page and selecting “send paid chat.” Entropy allows you to donate any amount from $3 and up. All comments will be read and discussed in the next episode of Counter-Currents Radio, which airs every Friday.
Notes
[1] Page 67
[2] Page 49
[3] Page 213
17 Comments
“The biggest drawback of the sexual revolution is the suppression of white birth rates.”
Maybe, but the sexual revolution is hardly the main reason for low (white) birthrates around the world.
Taiwan, Moldavia, Portugal, Singapore, and Poland aren’t exactly known for their sexual revolutions. But still these countries have the world’s lowest birthrates.
Catholic Poland, famous for its numerous LGBT-free zones, has some of the most restrictive laws on abortions and divorces in Europe, and doesn’t support any gay civil unions or marriages. But its fertility rate is only 1.29 per woman.
On the opposite side we find Iceland with a fertility rate of 1.92. This progressive country, famous for having had the world’s first openly gay/lesbian prime minister, has however relatively restrictive laws against pornography and prostitution.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/total-fertility-rate/
It also seems difficult to find much support for the claim that “acceptance of polygamy follows acceptance of homosexuality.” Polygamy is mainly legal in Muslim countries where homosexuality is illegal. And homosexuality is most accepted in Western countries where polygamy is illegal. The liberal attitude in Utah seems to be an exception to this rule.
Maybe, but the sexual revolution is hardly the main reason for low (white) birthrates around the world.
There is no evidence whatsoever that women are driving low birth rates.
I do agree with the author about no-fault divorce, though I don’t think he would like the results of getting rid of it.
These ridiculous woman-haters claim that, although it’s well-known that women find it harder to attract a mate as they age, they are walking away from perfectly good husbands for no reason whatsoever after, on average, eight years of marriage.
It’s absurd on its face.
Low birthrates is most common among high-IQ populations with access to contraceptives but without sufficient pro-natal policies from their governments. This is especially true for northeastern Asia and southern and eastern Europe.
It would of course be ridiculous to lay the major blame on women for that.
I agree, also because the text seems to forget women who never marry because of their career.
when searching for data on this issue I came to the following numbers, which may or may not be right. women over 40 who have never married in North America 10,8% (1), gay men 2.2% (2).
(1) https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/living-single/201908/around-the-world-marriage-is-declining-singles-are-rising%3famp
(2) https://www.statista.com/statistics/248822/american-adults-who-identify-as-lesbian-gay-or-bisexual-by-gender/
I agree, also because the text seems to forget women who never marry because of their career.
What evidence is there to support the claim that women don’t marry because of their careers? College-educated women are more likely get married and stay married than less-educated women.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/04/education-and-marriage/
Interesting data, but careers does not mean university degree.
I admit that I may not have been clear, but the essential data, there are four women over 40 who never married for every gay man.
Gay marriage will not cause an increase in polygamy relations.
Perhaps the hypothesis that deviant behavior will encourage others.
If the book is as good as the review, it must be a damned fine book!
Books like this should be taken with a big grain of salt. They tend to be written specifically for the audience of men who do bad with women; and unfortunately there’s enough of them on the dissident Right.
This section especially raises a red flag because it is complete nonsense –“With “no-fault” divorce this natural arrangement is upended. There is now a divorce industry. This industry is fueled by the natural impulse — suppressed by traditional marriage — that women have to take on a new lover when her baby is old enough to walk”. —
There is no natural impulse in women to find a new man every few years. It has to be said that men who think this way are always losers, and it makes the author seem like a crank.
Be discerning about this stuff.
My answer is to take the financial incentives out of divorce:
https://www.returnofkings.com/114357/how-we-can-fix-the-problem-with-western-marriage
Other than that, statistics really do show that premarital promiscuity causes lots of problems:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2003/pdf/Bookofcharts.pdf
This does support the idea that the sexual revolution helped ruin things. Like it or not, our great grandparents were right.
My answer is to take the financial incentives out of divorce:
There are no financial incentives for divorce. Women’s standard of living declines after a divorce. Alimony has been abolished, and child support terminates when the child reaches majority, leaving the mother with nothing.
I respectfully disagree. So would these guys – they’re outliers, but it happens on smaller scales too, of course:
https://infogalactic.com/info/List_of_most_expensive_divorces
As for alimony, the last I heard, it’s still there at least in the USA. If it’s been abolished, I’d be quite curious which federal law or SCOTUS decision did so.
Regarding standard of living, it would be great if those bottom-feeder “family law” attorneys would be required to disclose average outcomes, but that isn’t happening.
Irespectfully disagree. So would these guys – they’re outliers, but it happens on smaller scales too,
The idea that these were “expensive divorces” rests on the idea that the money was the husband’s during the marriage, and became the wife’s after the divorce. That is incorrect. The money belonged to the wife during the marriage. Property earned during the marriage is marital property, therefore jointly owned.
I am a stay-at-home mom, but I have a property interest in my husband’s paycheck and everything acquired with his earnings. That is the nature of marriage. Male chauvinists don’t like this, because they believe that women’s complimentary work in the home is less important than men’s work outside the home.
If it seems that some women get an unjust windfall, that is simply a function of the fact that marriage is “for better or worse.” In effect, a young man says to a woman: I don’t have anything right now, but I will freely share with you anything I ever do have in the future if you will marry me instead of that rich old geezer over there. And if we’re poor, we’ll be poor together.
If the wife’s gambit turns out to be “for better,” the husband can’t later say, “OK, so now that I’m rich I’m going to replace you with a younger model and leave you to fend for yourself. Indeed, to allow that would reduce aging wives to the status of at-will servants in their own homes, with all the power in the relationship accreting to the husband over time. I assume, for this crowd, that is a feature, not a bug. Men’s rights advocates want to destroy marriage in order to save it.
If it’s been abolished, I’d be quite curious which federal law or SCOTUS decision did so.
Divorce is a state matter, and this is how discarded housewives are treated:
https://www.justia.com/family/divorce/dividing-money-and-property/alimony/
One of the problems with the divorce racket as it is now is that, by the legal gimmick you described, the wife can abscond with half of the husband’s property (or whatever the judge orders). Assuming a traditional sort of arrangement, the wife indeed was keeping the house tidy and cooking meals, but the husband was paying for the house itself all that time and buying the food. That sounds like more than a wash!
This legalized theft is one of the factors that led to the marriage strike. One doesn’t need to be a “male chauvinist” to see that this is a sucker deal.
half of the husband’s property
It’s not his property. It’s their property. That is precisely the agreement made at the altar.
Assuming a traditional sort of arrangement, the wife indeed was keeping the house tidy and cooking meals, but the husband was paying for the house itself all that time and buying the food. That sounds like more than a wash!
He wasn’t paying for it. They were paying for it with jointly owned marital property.
Anyway, , given your contemptuous attitude towards stay-at-home moms and your willingness to throw them under the bus, you have no right to complain about “careerist” women who decide to look out for number 1.
Although it usually happens behind closed doors, sexual activity is the most public action in which someone can engage. After all, it is through sexual relations that future citizens are created. The state has always had an interest in regulating the sexual behavior of its citizens. State support of traditional marriage was the best way to do this.
One impact of homosexual liberation I have noticed myself is the “fag hag” phenomenon. Fag hags are straight women who hang out with gay men. Their hanging out could be summed up as binge drinking. Fag hags will pose with groups of gay men, all absolutely plastered on cocktails and fruity ciders and other effeminiate drinks that are tarted up with fruit flavors to disguise high alcohol content. Heterosexual men will drink simple beer or drink spirits neat. No frills about the fact you are ingesting something bitter and alcoholic.
Gay men encourage the worst in straight women. Gay men have a similar sex drive to straight men, possibly even higher, and the fag hags begin to think they can be the same. Gay men also generally have chaotic lives, with many sexual partners, and higher than normal amounts of drug use and drinking (and other things like debt and depression). Straight women feel ‘safe’ around gay men, because gay men are not going to rape them. So fag hags feel they can ‘let it all out’ and ‘let their hair down’ and go on these benders (pun intended) with their gay male friends.
So the chaotic lifestyle of the gay man is sold to straight women as desirable. Straight women have more partners than ever, possibly even more than gay men do, and their attitude towards consumerism is similarly excessive. Gay men are men, after all, and have a high sex drive. Women should not be exposed to that because it is an unhealthy and unrealistic lifestyle for straight women to have. There is also a political edge to this, in that when you see gay men and fag hags hanging out, there is a hedonism there and a nihilism, too which lends itself to left wing liberal politics. There’s a feeling of ‘making up for lost time’, and a general antipathy towards straight men – particularly straight, white, macho men. After all women love nothing more than bitching about men (“Where have all the good men gone?”) and gay men also have a chip on their shoulder about straight men and the loss of ‘rights’ they suffered for centuries, before everything changed in the 60s.
The most damaging aspect of the sexual revolution is that it celebrates non-reproductive sex at the expense of reproductive sex.
The main purpose of sex is no longer pregnancy but pleasure, according to this hedonistic view. Sex aiming at creating new life has become the new abnormal.
Pornography is the most obvious example of how different kinds of non-reproductive sex have been normalized. But the Pride-festivals play a similar role.
These festivals, which are partly tax-funded in many Western countries, express that people should be proud of having gay sex or dress in drag, but not of having reproductive sex. Thus they are the very opposite of the pagan fertility cults that celebrated the reproductive aspects of sex.
The problem isn’t, of course, gay or other non-reproductive sexual variations per se. The problem is how they are valued by our culture and society compared to reproduction.