The Sexual Revolution

Guest essay by Martin and Deidre Bobgan

The Sexual Revolution of the 1960s through the 1980s dramatically decimated much of the traditional moral foundation of the United States. As external standards of behavior lost their influence, all forms of sexual restraint were called into question and sexual liberation gained ground and accelerated rapidly. Clear rules about fornication being sinful were cast aside and replaced with an ever-increasing acceptance of sex outside of marriage, premarital sex, abortion on demand, homosexuality, pornography, and alternative sexual activities far outside God’s design for sexual union. Every deviation from God’s design that demanded acceptance, even beyond tolerance, that emerged through this Sexual Revolution has serious consequences and should be shunned by all Christians.

During the past fifty-plus years we have seen a rising fulfillment of Bible prophecy having to do with human nature. Under the guise of science, various branches of anthropology, psychology, and sociology took root and choked out the biblical definition of humanity. The very kind of “science falsely so-called” warned about in Scripture (1 Tim. 6:20) proclaimed that humans evolved from primates and are born with a clean slate (innately good) but corrupted (read “wounded”) by circumstances, society, and particularly parents.

Influence of Affluence

The sexual revolution of the 60s through the 80s could not have occurred during the ten-year period of the depression, which began in 1929. One of the most important ingredients in the sexual revolution is affluence. With increasing affluence, individuals focused more on self-fulfillment and personal satisfaction. The prevailing idea was that, if each person is fulfilled and satisfied, society’s ills would be healed. However, rather than that hoped-for conclusion, what we have seen is indeed the fulfillment of 2 Tim. 3: 1-5: “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such tum away.”

The ever-expanding fulfilment of 2 Tim. 3:1-5 was the seed-bed of the twentieth-century sexual revolution. Increasing affluence fueled the influences described in this chapter that gradually turned America from a God honoring country towards a self-honoring nation.

Alfred Kinsey’s Perverted and Pernicious Influence

In addition to what are called the “soft sciences” of anthropology, psychology, and sociology came what is regarded as a “hard science,” one that can usually be investigated because one is dealing with physical rather than nonphysical phenomena. Nevertheless, one of the best-known biologists, Alfred Kinsey (1894-1956), drew numerous subjective conclusions from his biased research in human sexuality. Kinsey had been highly influenced by Charles Darwin’s evolution ideas, which helped him decimate traditional sexual morality. In fact, the sexual revolution may never have occurred without Darwin’s theory of evolution, in which he postulated that all species of life evolved over a period of time. By the late nineteenth century, the scientific community and many of the general public had accepted evolution as a fact, even without substantial physical proof. Moreover, evolution obviously contradicts the biblical teachings of creation.

Since that time, many evolutionists in various fields have used Darwin’s “science falsely so called” and applied it to the human condition, thereby contributing to anti-biblical morality. In his article “Kinsey, Darwin and the Sexual Revolution,” Jerry Bergman asserts:

Alfred Kinsey is the father of the modem Western sexual revolution. A review of the life and work of Kinsey reveals Darwinism was critically important in his crusade to overturn traditional sexual morality. He tried achieving this goal by convincing the public and the scientific world that what was widely regarded as deviant behavior then, including adultery, fornication, homosexuality, sadomasochism and paedophilia, were all widely practiced and therefore “normal” and acceptable. Kinsey’s conclusions have now been shown by extensive empirical research to be fatally flawed. Kinsey’s sexual revolution has caused major social problems, an epidemic of disease and the breakdown of the family.¹ (Bold added.)

When individuals base their thinking and beliefs on evolution, the truth of God as creator is either erased or penciled over with the notion that God somehow had to use evolution in order to create His universe. In reality, one faith replaced another, and evolutionary morality based on animal behavior replaced biblical morality. In other words, sexual immorality replaced the morality of God’s created order, and particularly God’s sexual design.

Kinsey’s most influential books are Sexual Behavior in the Human Male2, and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female.³ These books brought sexuality front and center and engendered interest in sex and its many possible variations. However, Kinsey’s research was not without controversy because of his choice to use for his data base individuals who did not represent the average American man or woman. Nevertheless, in spite of serious flaws in his research, Kinsey was hailed as an expert on sexology. His teaching and writing turned the minds of many and prepared Americans to change their attitudes about sex and sexual behaviors.

Kinsey’s own personal sexual preferences no doubt influenced much of his research and particularly his research conclusions. He, himself, was bisexual. It is reported that “as a young man, [he] would punish himself for having homoerotic feelings.”⁴ Kinsey and his wife “agreed that both could have sex with other people as well as with each other. He had sex with other men, including his student.”⁵

Dr. Paul Cameron notes some serious problems with Kinsey’s research. He says: “Kinsey’s sampling method was woefully defective; heavily overloaded with prisoners, gay bars, and prostitutes; completely non-random.” He further says that Kinsey presented a “distorted picture of American sexual habits” and “severely overestimated the prevalence of homosexuality.”⁶ Thus Kinsey’s claims about arriving at “statistically common behavior” were deceptive because of his choice of interviewees. Instead of using a cross-sample of individuals across the country, Kinsey used prisoners and other “biased groups.” Vern L. Bullough, in his book Sexual Variance in Society and History, says in reference to population groups with a paucity of members of the opposite sex: “We know, for example, that more homosexuality exists in prisons than outside.”⁷

Even before the publication of Kinsey’s Male Report, the media had picked up the following statistics regarding his findings, not realizing that they were untrustworthy: 

• 85% of males in the U.S. have intercourse prior to marriage.
• Nearly 70% have sex with prostitutes.
• Between 30% and 45% of husbands have extramarital intercourse.
• 37% of all males have homosexual experiences between adolescence and old age.⁸

These statistics were quite a surprise to the ordinary American. They brought great confusion regarding the traditional views and values and opened the door to all kinds of perverse sexual behavior, with the misunderstanding that abnormal was normal and what had been considered normal had actually been abnormal. Cameron points out that Kinsey’s claims that “37% of all men” have participated in homosexuality and “10% were more or less homosexual” are in gross error-a myth that continues to be perpetrated by gay activists. Cameron gives the “Best Evidence Today” as “<2% of adults are currently ‘homosexual’ in large-scale probability surveys.”⁹

Kinsey, together with three other like-minded colleagues wrote “Concepts of Normality and Abnormality,” in which they blame religious moral codes for restricting sodomy and other sexual practices and lifestyles of homosexuals. They say: “With the expansion of the temporal power of the Christian Church, the control of the whole body of sex law and custom fell into religious hands, and remained there for many centuries.”¹⁰ They further say:

The enforcement of these fundamentally religious codes against the so-called sexual perversions has been accomplished, throughout the centuries, by attaching considerable emotional significance to them. This has been effected, in part, by synonymizimg the terms clean, natural, normal, moral, and right, and the terms unclean, unnatural, abnormal, immoral, and wrong.¹¹

Kinsey et al. blame Christian moral codes for harming those individuals who have homosexual desires by making them feel guilty for their “natural” feelings. In other words, they reject what the Bible says and contend that its restrictions have nothing to do with what is right or wrong sexually for what they refer to as the “human animal.” They say that to determine what is normal and abnormal for the human animal one must take into consideration “the sexual behavior of man’s primate relatives, and that of mammals in general.”¹²

Kinsey et al. contend that all sexual attractions and practices that are similar to other mammals are normal. They conclude their chapter by saying:

In the light of these accumulated data, we must conclude that current concepts of normality and abnormality in human sexual behavior represent what are primarily moral evaluations. They have little if any biologic justification. The problem presented by the so-called sexual perversions is a product of the disparity between the basic biologic heritage of the human animal, and the traditional, cultural codes.¹³ (Bold added.)

In other words, the disparity in what is right and wrong depends in part on whether one has faith in evolution or Creation: faith in Darwin or God.

Kinsey is a booming anti-Christian voice from “science falsely so-called” that promoted transforming abnormal (against nature) to normal. Dr. Judith A. Reisman and Edward W. Eichel, in their book, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People, say:

No man in modern times has shaped public attitudes to, and perceptions of, human sexuality more than the late Alfred C. Kinsey. He advocated that all sexual behaviors considered deviant were normal, while polemicizing that exclusive heterosexuality was abnormal and a product of cultural inhibitions and societal conditioning …. Few people realized that the data he presented were not, as claimed, scientific. Nor were the data representative of societal norms …. The importance of this issue is underscored by the fact that Kinsey’s conclusions have become, to some extent, a self-fulfilling prophecy. They are the basis for much that is taught in sex education and for an ongoing agenda to engineer public attitudes about human sexuality.¹⁴ (Bold added.)

Emancipation and Equality for Sexual Freedom

A series of human rights movements designed to set people free from oppression inadvertently contributed to the sexual rights agenda. We are thankful for all that has been done to free Blacks from slavery and prejudice and to grant equal rights to people of all races and creeds. We are thankful that women are more and more being treated fully as human beings. However, the push for women’s rights in tandem with the sexual revolution led to women wanting an equal right to engage in sex without the burden of pregnancy. The first solution to the problem of pregnancy was birth control. It has been said, “Perhaps if the 

pill had not been invented, American politics would be very different today …. The Pill made possible the sexual revolution of the 1960s.”¹⁵

In 1960 the FDA approved the first oral contraceptive, the birth control pill.16 Although “the pill” was not immediately available by law in all states, approximately 1,187,000 women were using it by 1962.17 However, if birth control failed, the woman, but not the man, would bear the consequence of pregnancy and child bearing. Many women did not want those consequences and pushed for so-called rights over their own bodies. In 1973 the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Roe v. Wade permitted a woman under certain conditions to have an abortion.¹⁸ Somehow these women who aborted were led to believe that the fetus was part of their own body, but not truly a human being.

Following the righteous cause for equal rights for people of all races and creeds and the unrighteous cause to legalize the right to kill one’s own unborn baby, another group surfaced in fighting for minority rights. Homosexual activists placed themselves in a category of deserving equal rights with a twist. They wanted the right to have their sexual preferences and activities considered normal and good. But first they had to get rid of the anti-Sodomy laws that were in place in 1960 and which carried possible imprisonment for anyone participating in sodomy (oral and/or anal sex).

The Stonewall riots of 1969 are considered to be a pivotal rallying point in leading to the gay liberation movement.¹⁹ Homosexual activists worked assiduously state by state to have such laws changed. However, sodomy was not legalized in all 50 states until 2003.²⁰ Although in some States these laws were against all sodomy, whether practiced by homosexuals or heterosexuals, in practice they were only used against homosexuals, which, of course, was unfair and discriminatory. It is not their private sexual rights that concern us. It is their public demands for minority rights that deeply concern us. Their progress towards the acceptance of homosexual sexual practices have accelerated to the point of sodomy being considered natural and normal and even, by many Christians, a pleasurable gift from God.

Calling Evil Good and Good Evil

Homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder prior to 1973, but it was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) by vote. An article in The American Journal of Psychiatry explains how the controversy was fully resolved in the DSM-III to make it normal unless a homosexual person feels uncomfortable with his homosexual orientation to the point of seeking psychiatric help.

In 1973 homosexuality per se was removed from the DSM-II classification of mental disorders and replaced by the category Sexual Orientation Disturbance. This represented a compromise between the view that preferential homosexuality is invariably a mental disorder and the view that it is merely a normal sexual variant.²¹

Both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association have bought into the idea that like-sex orientation is normal, if it feels normal, and that the sexual activities between like-sex individuals are also normal, if they feel normal. Worse yet, the American Psychiatric Association has gone on record to say that pedophilia is no longer a mental disorder unless it disturbs the person or brings harm to anyone else.²²

The Media: Public Proclamation of Sexual Uncleanness and Fornication

Of course, the sexual revolution was only the beginning. The leaven of the sexual revolution continued to expand both through advocacy groups and the media. The world entered every household, not just through the ears (radio), but through the eyes (television). Step by step divorce and fornication became more socially acceptable. Thus, in 1969 film director Andy Warhol (1928-1987) directed Blue Movie, the first sexually explicit “adult movie” to be released to movie theaters across America.²³ Again, that was just the beginning.

The leaven has continued to expand throughout America in ways that, at the beginning of the sexual revolution itself, would have been inconceivable. The expansion has been swift and unstoppable because of the dramatic shift from morality based outside self to a new relative morality, based inside self, that too often ends in immorality. As one historian noted, “the sexual revolution was a time of ‘coming out’: about premarital sex, masturbation, erotic fantasies, pornography use, and sexuality.”²⁴

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! (Isa. 5:20-21).

Endnotes

1. Jerry Bergman, “Kinsey, Darwin, and the Sexual Revolution,” Creation Ministries International. 
2. Alfred Charles Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy. Clyde E. Martin. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders, 1948.
3. Alfred Charles Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy, Clyde E. Martin. Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders, 1953.
4. “Alfred Kinsey,” Wikipedia, referencing James H. Jones. Alfred C. Kinsey: A life. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2004, p. 610.
5. “Alfred Kinsey,” Wikipedia, referencing David J. Ley. Insatiable Wives: Women Who Stray and the Men Who love Them. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009, p. 59.
6. Paul Cameron, “How Many Homosexuals Are There?” Family Research Institute.
7. Vern L. Bulluogh. Sexual Variance in Society and History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976, p. 25.
8. Bulluogh, p. 2.
9. Cameron, op. cit.
10. Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy, Clyde E. Martin, and Paul H. Gebhard, “Concepts of Normality and Abnormality in Sexual Behavior” in Psychosexual Development in Health and Disease, Paul H. Hoch and Joseph Zubin, eds., New York: Grune & Stratton, 1949, p. 14.
11. Kinsey et al. ibid., p. 16. 
12. Kinsey et al. ibid., p. 23. 
13. Kinsey et al. ibid., p. 32.
14. Judith A. Reisman and Edward W. Eichel. Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People. Lafayette, LA: Lochinvar-Huntington House, 1990, p. 2; http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/Kinsey_Sex_and_Fraud.pdf. 
15. Nancy L. Cohen, “How the Sexual Revolution Changed America Forever.”  
16. “Combined oral contraceptive pill,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill#cite_note-tone-9, 8/11/17. 
17. “Sexual Revolution in the 1960s United States,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_revolution_in_I960s_United_States, 6/14/17. 
18. “Roe v. Wade,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade, 9/10/2017.
19. “Sexual Revolution in the I960s United States,” Wikipedia, op. cit.
20. “Sodomy Laws in the United States,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States. 
21. The American Journal of Psychiatry, “The diagnostic status of homosexuality in DSM-III: a reformulation of the issues,” Volume 138 Issue 2, February 1981, pp. 210-215, Abstract at https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/l%200.1176/ajp.I38.2.210. 
22. Hunter Stuart, “Not All Pedophiles Have Mental Disorder, American Psychiatric Association Says in New DSM,” Huffington Post, Nov. I, 20 I 3.
23. “Sexual Revolution in the I 960s United States,” op. cit. 24 “Sexual Revolution,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_revolution, 5/4/2017. 
24. “Sexual Revolution,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_revolution, 5/4/2017.

This article is an excerpt from Martin and Deidre Bobgan’s new book The Sodomy of Christians: The Biblical View (at Amazon), Chapter 3,appeared online and in the January-February 2018, Vol. 26, No. 1, PsychoHeresy Awareness Letter circular email, an outreach of PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries. 

About the book, the Bobgans say: Some years back we decided to place our books on the PsychoHeresy website as free eBooks. However, this current book will be sold, rather than provided free, in order to generate income for the continuation of PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries. As we say in the introduction to the book:

The Sodomy of Christians: The Biblical View is written for Christians who desire to think and live according to the Word of God, because many are, perhaps unknowingly, following the sinful ways of the world in the marriage bed. Information is provided about the sexual climate in America and in the church to alert Christians of the dangers of sodomy and to urge all Christians to discipline their bodies according to God’s sexual design for mankind as revealed in Scripture. Christians who have engaged in sexual intimacy outside the pattern of God’s design, as clearly revealed in Scripture, need to follow the Narrow Way, rather than the ways of the world, the flesh, and the devil.

The reason why Americans and many Christians have swallowed the whole homosexual agenda is because many heterosexual Americans and Christians were themselves practicing homosexual sexual acts. After all, aside from the gender of their partners, heterosexuals were doing the same thing as homosexuals: sodomy.

Martin and Deidre Bobgan, founders of the PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries, have spoken on psychology and Christianity at numerous conferences and churches and on radio and television. Together they have authored 21 books. Martin’s education: University of Minnesota, B. A., B. S., M. A.; University of Colorado, Doctorate in Educational Psychology.  Deidre’s education: University of Minnesota, B. S.; University of California, M. A. in English.

PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries
4137 Primavera Road
Santa Barbara, CA 93110
www.pamweb.org

© 2019 Used by Permission

Nordskog Publishing (NPI) provides articles and essays by select guest authors which we believe have much to offer the Christian community—to motivate Biblical thinking and action. We believe in the market place of ideas within the context of God’s Word. However, we may disagree at points.  Publishing an article does not mean absolute agreement. Therefore, please understand that opinions expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of NPI, nor of its editorial staff.