Nina Power

The Unintended Consequences of Liberation The 1960s promised a future where technology and social shifts would grant women the ultimate freedom: the ability to behave exactly like men in the sexual arena. By severing the link between sex and reproduction through the invention of The Pill, architects of this movement believed they were dismantling a patriarchal system of control. Yet, as Louise Perry argues in her provocative work, The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, the results have been anything but empowering for the average woman. Instead of achieving a state of liberated bliss, many find themselves in a culture that incentivizes their own emotional suppression to accommodate male sexual interests. This shift wasn't a natural evolution but a technological disruption. While historical feminism focused on legal rights and economic participation, the sexual revolution focused on the commodification of the body. We traded old norms of protection and courtship for a "wild west" environment where the most aggressive actors set the terms. Understanding this requires looking past the glossy narrative of progress and examining the biological and psychological wreckage left in the wake of "no strings attached" culture. When we treat sex as a leisure activity—no different from grabbing a coffee or hitting the gym—we ignore the profound physical and emotional vulnerabilities that are hard-wired into the human experience. The Myth of Sexual Disenchantment A central tenet of modern liberal thought is the idea of "sexual disenchantment." This concept, borrowed from sociological theories about the enlightenment, suggests that we should strip sex of its "specialness" or sacred status. If sex is just work, just exercise, or just fun, then all the old-fashioned hang-ups about shame, reputation, and commitment should theoretically vanish. However, the reality on the ground—and particularly on the bathroom floor where many find themselves dry-retching after a "casual" encounter—tells a different story. Humans are not rational robots; we are social animals governed by instincts that predate the internet by hundreds of thousands of years. Even those within the polyamory community or the "sex work is work" movement struggle to live out this disenchantment. If selling sex were truly identical to working at McDonald's, the psychological trauma associated with it would be non-existent. Instead, we see rates of PTSD in the industry that rival or exceed those found in active combat zones. The visceral reaction to infidelity, the "ick" factor in dating, and the trauma of low-level sexual harassment all point to one undeniable truth: sex still occupies a unique, sensitive category in the human psyche. Trying to force ourselves into a state of indifference regarding our most intimate acts is not liberation; it is a form of self-alienation that leads to profound anxiety and dissatisfaction. The Asymmetric Warfare of Modern Dating The technological shift has created a "matthew principle" in the dating market: the winners take everything, and the losers are left in a sexual wasteland. For the "top" tier of high-status men, the current culture is a paradise. They can access unlimited sexual variety without the traditional costs of commitment, provision, or protection. But for the vast majority of men and women, the landscape is bleak. We see a burgeoning underclass of sexless men—often retreating into the darker corners of the internet like the Incel community—while many women find themselves "alpha widows," pining for high-status men who had no intention of ever offering them a long-term partnership. This asymmetry is fueled by the denial of sexual dimorphism. By pretending that men and women have identical sexual psychologies, we've created a system that favors the male strategy of short-term variety. Women generally have a lower sexual disgust threshold and a higher propensity for emotional bonding through oxytocin. When the culture demands they suppress these instincts to be "up for it" or "adventurous," it isn't just a lifestyle choice; it's a war against their own biology. The result is a generation of women who are more educated and higher-earning than ever before, yet increasingly unable to find the stable, status-equal partners they instinctively seek. The Super-Stimulus Trap: Porn and OnlyFans The commodification of sex has reached its logical conclusion with OnlyFans and the proliferation of high-speed internet porn. While proponents argue that these platforms empower women to monetize their own bodies, the long-term social costs are staggering. OnlyFans operates on a predatory "winner-take-all" distribution where a tiny minority of celebrities make the bulk of the money, while the rest sacrifice their future relationship prospects for meager gains. The "sexual double standard"—long decried by feminists—is not a social construct that can be wished away; it is an evolutionary reality of male mate-guarding. A woman who puts her intimate images behind a paywall today is often unknowingly pricing herself out of the stable marriage market of tomorrow. For men, the "super-stimulus" of online porn acts as a form of cultural Death Grip Syndrome. It trains the male brain to respond to pixels rather than people, leading to soaring rates of erectile dysfunction among young men who are physically incapable of being aroused by a real, live partner. This isn't just an individual failure; it's a societal neutering. When men can bypass the effort required to become attractive, stable, and pro-social members of a community by simply clicking a link, the entire incentive structure for male excellence collapses. The result is a listless, unmotivated male population that neither contributes to society nor forms the families that maintain cultural stability. The Secular Case for Traditional Norms Returning to more traditional dating norms isn't about religious fundamentalism; it's about social survival. Historically, monogamy functioned as a form of "sexual socialism." It was a redistribution strategy that ensured most men had a stake in the future by providing them with a wife and children, thereby lowering testosterone-driven aggression and crime. When we dissolve these norms, we don't just get "free love"; we get the return of polygynous dynamics where a small group of men monopolize women, and the rest of the society becomes unstable and violent. Louise Perry suggests a radical, if old-fashioned, path forward: a return to vetting and slow-playing the sexual process. By refusing to have sex on the first date—or even in the first three months—women can effectively filter for men who are interested in "wife material" rather than just a "good time." It raises the price of sex back to a level that demands male effort and commitment. While this may seem like a step backward to some, it is actually a strategy for regaining agency in a market that has become increasingly dehumanizing. Recognizing that people are not products is the first step toward building a culture where intimacy is once again linked to genuine human connection rather than mere consumerism. Rebuilding the Human Blueprint The sexual revolution was a grand experiment that assumed we could use technology to overwrite human nature. Six decades later, the data suggests the experiment has failed to deliver the happiness it promised. We see falling birth rates, rising loneliness, and a profound misunderstanding between the sexes. The way forward is not to descend into bitterness or resentment, but to acknowledge the inherent differences between men and women and respect the biological limits of our psychology. Growth happens when we align our actions with our deepest needs for security, respect, and belonging. True empowerment isn't found in the ability to act like a high-status male; it's found in the courage to protect one's own boundaries and demand a culture that values the whole person over the sum of their parts. As we navigate this complex landscape, we must remember that some things are "special" for a reason. Reclaiming the sacredness of sex and the stability of the family isn't just a conservative whim—it is a necessary foundation for a resilient and thriving society.