Direct Link to Latest News


"Sexual Liberation" is Anti-Woman

September 14, 2003

navel.jpgAn item in a story on blind dates in a local university newspaper caught my eye.

The young female author advised girls to bring "protection" on the date, "just in case."

The blithe notion that a girl might jump into bed with a stranger on a first date shows how far females have been hoodwinked by "sexual liberation."

To begin with, the term "sexual liberation" is typical Masonic double speak. Liberation is when you don't have to think about sex all the time. Casual sex ensures that you do.

Sexual liberation is part of a feminist strategy to make young women devote their most fertile years to building a career instead of a family. The deceitful logic, expressed in books like "Sex and the Single Girl" is, "If you can have sex outside of marriage, why get married?" (So your life is devoted to something greater than career?)

The world elite is using feminism to reduce population and do away with the family. Their media bombards us with young fertile women pursuing demanding careers and supplanting men as providers. We are inundated with young women flaunting themselves "no strings attached."

Young women are being tricked into thinking promiscuity is "cool" and the way to get love. When they succumb, they usually feel used, empty and angry.


"Sexual liberation" is incompatible with feminine psychology, which is based on biology.

One male ejaculation produces 200 million sperm. A woman produces one egg a month.

Thus man who could populate a planet, tends to care about abstractions and principles. Woman, on the other hand, has a unique ability to care for a few real people.

A woman needs a man to focus on her (and his offspring) to the exclusion of all the other women. Sexual liberation obviously does not serve her. Love and marriage do.

Furthermore, for a woman sexual intercourse is total self-surrender. She doesn't only remove her clothes; she surrenders her whole being. This is why a woman becomes so radiant and beautiful in the sex act. She is sacrificing herself for love, for the survival of the species.

Love is self-surrender. Sexual intercourse is the act of love. Even if conception doesn't take place, it has the same psychic significance. How many times can a woman be disappointed before she loses the ability to love?

This is why traditional morality reserved sexual intercourse for love. Love naturally takes time to grow. Courtship is the process by which a man earns a woman's trust and love. Women should insist on it.


For a man, the sex act is planting his seed, which is his essence. He should not plant it indiscriminately, symbolically or not.

For a man, love is a different kind of self-surrender. He devotes himself to providing leadership and sustenance to his family. He acquires stability and meaning from this sacrifice, and from intimacy with his wife.

In order to develop psychologically, a man needs a woman to accept his leadership. Obviously a woman who has been burned by successive men will find it difficult to love (trust and acquiesce.)

Sexually, a woman responds best when she can lose herself completely. (See "The Power of Sexual Surrender") A woman's arousal is what arouses a man. That is why "sexual liberation" is bad for both sexes.


By eschewing love, "sexual liberation" has debased all male-female relationships. But young women especially have been degraded by this false satanic ideology.

They have been taught to bare their souls to males who only want to use their bodies. For women, this is the spiritual equivalent of rape.

The recent fashion of baring the midriff is a metaphor for feminine degradation. Most women do not have the body for this. It makes them look silly and cheap, and feel more insecure than ever.

It's time young women stopped being fashion victims. Like feminism, "sexual liberation" is a cruel elite-sponsored hoax.

It's time young women obeyed their own instincts, and insisted on true sexual liberation based on courtship and marriage.

Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at