The Sexual Liberation of Women

If you listen to feminists droning on about the contraceptive pill and explaining how it was that women quickly 'liberated' themselves sexually when they were able to get their hands on it, thus reducing their ultimate dependence on men, you might be forgiven for thinking that feminists had actually invented the thing.

They hadn't. Feminists had nothing to do with it.

It was manufactured by a man - a medical scientist. And his work was mostly based upon the work of the other male scientists who went before him.

You would also be led to believe by feminist disinformation that men, in their desperate desire to keep women on the leash, were totally opposed to the pill. And feminists would further like to persuade you that they, themselves, wrestled politically, and successfully, with the male gender, in order to force men into accepting the pill as a valid means of contraception; a means which gave women the 'upper hand'.

But, as is typical, feminists lie and deceive - and they most usually distort our History in such a way as to portray the men of the past as the most wicked oppressors of women.

Thus, they would also claim, for example, that only when feminists themselves arrived on the scene to protect women from the tyrannical abuse of male power were women truly 'liberated' from the oppression of men.

Well, as someone who was sexually active around the time that the pill became available in the UK, here is what the situation was really like in those days.

I remember very clearly the arrival of histrionic groups of hostile, irrational women calling themselves 'feminists' in the very late 1960's and the early 1970's. 

They seemed to appear from nowhere.

'Normal' feminists (such as the likes of Erin Pizzey) had been around for some time, and we were accustomed to them. They articulated a female point of view. They were cuddly, loving, very feminine, and they danced around with bare feet, snogging the boys and leading them astray in the grass.

Make love, not war!

These 'new' feminists, however, seemed more like a snarling lesbian military. They barked. They screeched. They growled. And they seemed to do little but taunt and deride men in the most appallingly derogatory manner. 

Almost anything to do with men was denounced as unwholesome, and their sole purpose really seemed to be nothing more than to inject male hatred into our culture and to manufacture, from thin air, spurious and unjustified accusations in order, so it seemed, to excuse an openly aggressive attitude toward men.

The nation mostly looked upon these women with disdain, and hoped that they would go away.

Regretfully, they didn't. 

They stayed.

By the very late 60's women were indeed being 'liberated' from the kitchen, partly thanks to the advent of the pill, but mostly due to the arrival of many other technologies for the average home (such as the car! - and the washing machine) - just about all of which were created by men. 

But men were also being liberated by virtue of the fact that the pill allowed them far greater freedom with regard to their own sexual activities.

When his girlfriend was on the pill, the man stood far less chance of being responsible for a pregnancy which, in those days, virtually forced him into marriage. 

Indeed, the young men of the 60s, and those who went before them, seemed to be permanently pestered by their girlfriends into discussing an early marriage whenever they opened their legs wider than nine degrees.

However, it is fair to say that, for most girls, in those days, marriage was actually the best way of escaping from their homes and liberating themselves from the restrictions of their parents. Marriage was considered by young women to be the best route to their own freedoms - not (as feminists would tell you) to one of lifelong oppression by the men whom they wished to marry.

And so, I'll give you sex if you give me marriage, summed up much of the gender bargaining prior to the advent of the pill.

(The same sort of thing is true today. But, whereas, in those days, living together 'in sin' (i.e. unmarried) was not considered appropriate by almost anyone, today, not only is such a thing acceptable, it is almost mandatory.)

If you listen to feminists, however, you'll be given the impression that young men could hardly wait to entrap prospective females into marriage, for their own domineering purposes, and that getting a wife was a priority that was always on their minds.

This is a preposterous notion. And anyone who knows anything about young men knows full well that their carnal desires have very little to do with establishing permanent, long-term, monogamous relationships.

Indeed, it was the female gender that almost always equated sex with marriage, not the men. This is the TRUTH of the matter.

Women wanted marriage after sex - and often before it - whereas men, most usually, did not.

Marriage was a high priority for women. And so if feminists are right about marriage being a means whereby men oppress women, then it is clearly the case that the women were actually begging to be oppressed!

Also, and most importantly for the lustful young man, the pill dispensed with the need to wear desensitising condoms and/or from having to withdraw his penis just at the point when he really wanted it there.

The pill was an absolute godsend to the actively sexual male.

And to say that women quickly saw the pill as some sort of 'liberating' medical technology is to distort the truth completely. If anything, they saw the pill as giving their male partners license to fool around with other females without having to risk any consequences - particularly the one of being found out!

Ask any man who was sexually active at the time which gender was more keen to use the pill, and you will soon discover that it was men, rather than women, who were MUCH more enthusiastic for the pill to be used.

In most cases, women had to be pressurised by their men into going on the pill. It was not something that women were eager to do. Indeed, for many of the earlier years, finding a young woman who was actually on the pill was tantamount to winning the lottery.

Most women were simply too 'ashamed' to use the pill. They saw its use as a 'sign of promiscuity' - and so did many others. They were likely to be called 'sluts' by their very own mothers and their girlfriends if they were discovered to be 'on the pill', and men often, therefore, had a hard time convincing their female partners that the pill was, in fact, a 'good idea'.

And those women who eventually grew brave enough to use the pill often hid the fact that they did.

Another reason that ordinary women remained reluctant to use the pill was because it was being so heavily advocated by feminists!

The last thing that most women in the early 70s wanted to do was to associate themselves in any way with a group of hostile unfeminine unattractive women who squawked and shrieked and poured nothing but venom upon their menfolk.

It certainly wasn't women or feminists who succeeded in encouraging women to use the pill to liberate themselves sexually. It was men who eventually persuaded their women to use the pill for the sake of their own sexual freedom.

Of course it was.

It has always been the case that men make up the gender wanting lots more sex, and it is women who tend to restrain it.

As the years went by, the pill became more and more acceptable to women. 

It was also true that those women who were known to be on the pill were a lot more sought after by men. This is not surprising, for the same is true today. Women, therefore, began to go on the pill in order to make themselves more 'available' and, hence, more attractive.

I find it astonishing that feminists have, for so long, been able to get away with the lie that, somehow, they were the ones who led the way forward when it came to liberating women sexually. Nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, feminists actually retarded the sexual liberation of women because most women simply did not want to be seen to be like them.

Feminists repelled them.

And the vast majority of women, like the men, saw the 'new' feminists as unattractive, cold, hostile and emotionally 'genderless'.

Younger women today have been indoctrinated with the untruths that they were sexually liberated by feminists. The truth is that men sexually liberated themselves when they created and manufactured the pill, and, in doing so, they liberated those very women with whom they wanted to have sex.

And exactly the same happens today. It is young men who 'persuade' and cajole young women into liberating themselves sexually. It is young men who tempt and harass young women into performing.

Indeed, so forceful are some of these young men in their endeavours, that they end up in a whole lot of trouble!

And some even end up in prison.

It is absurd to believe that misandric feminists who can't get along with men AT ALL actually encouraged women to become more sexually involved with them. 

Think about it. If feminists had truly had their way, young women would have isolated themselves in women-only covens shouting abuse at the men who passed by. 

It's pretty much what they do today.

And it is ludicrous to believe that the young men sat by, twiddling their knobs, waiting patiently for feminists to get women to 'open up'.

When the pill came on to the market, it was the men who went in there, literally, like a shot.

They were desperately encouraging their women to take the pill - emotionally blackmailing them into doing so, pleading with them, at least, 'to try it', promising them a possible future marriage if they would, or threatening to leave them if they wouldn't. 

And, among themselves - whisper, whisper - was the ubiquitous question, "Is she on the pill? Is she on the pill?". If not, her attractiveness plummeted, and their attentions were turned toward other girls on the dance floor who might be on the pill.

It was men who truly sexually liberated women because they were desperately sexually liberating themselves. 

And, at the time, they had quite a hard time convincing women that sex without marriage was a positive thing for BOTH genders and, further, that women would not actually rot in Hell if they used sex as a means of enjoying themselves.

The pill allowed men and women to cuddle, stroke, suck and sex each other, without clothes, and without the previously high likelihood of pregnancies, which almost invariably led to both parties having to commit themselves to each other - for life! (as marriage was once wont to be).

The pill liberated both the sexes in this respect.

But, as is usually case, it was men who did the liberating - and the women mostly followed their lead.

The feminist movement at the time did little but retard this progress by demonising men and poisoning the even closer relationships that were then developing between the genders.

And while the 'Flower Power' movements of the 60s with their 'Make Love Not War' slogans and demonstrations were impacting upon the authoritarianism of the government and of those in power in general, the 'new' feminists were busying themselves with stirring up a hatred between the 'loving' youths because, I imagine, they were simply too personally unattractive to be a part of it all. 

And their growing vindictiveness toward the male gender quickly killed a movement that was bent on fostering "love and peace", and it replaced it with one that promulgated an ideology based mostly on generating a hatred of men.