Was there a ‘sexual revolution’ in the Twentieth Century?

By Vanessa Lace, First Year History Student

In 1972 Loretta Lynn sang “Yeah I'm makin' up for all those years // Since I've got the pill”, to highlight how revolutionary the invention of the contraceptive pill was to a women’s sexual freedom. Hera Cook argues it was the widespread availability of the pill that caused a ‘transformation of sexual mores from 1965 to 1969’ and many historians agree a sexual revolution took place in the twentieth century. Callum Brown for example, argues it was a ‘crisis of faith’ amongst women in the 1960s that led to a radical change towards more sexually permissive behaviour. In this essay, the term ‘sexual revolution’ is defined as a seismic and permanent shift towards the creation of a society where everyone gains complete body autonomy, and the majority of people’s attitudes are accepting of different sexual ideas. Additionally, I will be focusing on Britain and America, as there is enough evidence for a debate without considering more countries. Whilst on paper there were many changes across the century, this essay will argue that in practise new freedoms such as the ‘swinging sixties’ attitude towards sex, the invention of the contraceptive pill and the introduction of the Sexual Offences Act passed in 1967, have been exaggerated, to conclude that sexual evolution, rather than revolution, occurred during the twentieth century.

The ‘swinging sixties’ are often hailed as revolutionary in terms of everyone adopting a more liberal attitude towards sex, however Angus McLaren argues this is ‘perhaps the most popular cultural myth’ of the time. “The period witnessed not one simple liberation, but the emergence and clash of a variety of new sexual scripts.”, he notes heterosexual couples began to enjoy having more sex, whilst the ‘second wave’ feminists told them this was oppressing women, and homosexuals tried make a place for themselves in a society where most felt they had to remain ‘in the closet’. In addition, Steven Garton notes how historians are still discovering different sexual cultures that existed during the decade and argues “such research throws up important questions about whether the concept of revolution...is an adequate metaphor”, for the period. Both historians argue the sixties cannot have been revolutionary because instead of one unified movement there were several different groups that each had their own agenda of what sex should mean in society. In Britain there is also evidence to suggest those from middle class backgrounds were more likely to adopt more modern attitudes than the working classes. Historians Simon Szreter and Kate Fisher found that both sexes of middle-class respondents felt birth control was “a matter of choice and deliberation between the two partners”, whereas working class couples felt it was a man’s responsibility to provide contraception for a woman and was not something to be discussed, which meant they “unsurprisingly felt alienated from contemporary society with its emphasis on overt eroticism and sexual athleticism”. Szreter and Fisher argue there cannot have been a revolution when so many of the population had no desire to engage with the modern liberal attitudes that emerged in the period. One agrees with Szreter and Fisher because of the sheer volume of evidence they deploy to substantiate their claim that ‘revolution’ was rather geographically dependant. The effect of the ‘swinging sixties’ has been exaggerated because far from everyone becoming more sexually liberal, not only were there in fact different disunited strands campaigning for their own aims, but there was also a large section of society that felt left behind. Thus, there was not a sexual revolution because the majority of people’s attitudes had not become more liberal.

With regards to the invention of the pill, many historians feel the extent to which it gave women greater sexual freedom has been exaggerated. McLaren argues the original intent of the pill was not that of a revolutionary contraceptive designed to be easier for a woman to take, but to “preserve stable family values and the world order”. They add it was easier for male doctors to prescribe than having to insert coil or a diaphragm, perhaps insinuating that the contraception was not designed to benefit women and give them greater sexual freedom but to make the GPs life easier and less awkward. One finds McLaren’s argument convincing as he uses evidence of the scientists’ early intentions which are seldom used by other historians who tend to focus on the intentions of politicians. Michael Murphey notes “contraceptive knowledge was still very imperfect in the early 1970s”. Their table of data showing 13% of the women surveyed used the pill in 1967, increasing to 32% in 1976 is evidence to substantiate their argument that if women were not taught properly about contraception, they were unlikely to try a new method. Furthermore, the importance of the pill has been exaggerated because although the pill was introduced to Britain in 1961, Katherine Jones notes “only middle-class, married women were eligible and could afford it.”, and it was not until 1975 that the contraceptive became widely available through a GP. The introduction of the pill also caused many women to be forced into sex by men who thought this acceptable behaviour now that there was little risk of her getting pregnant. The role of the pill has been exaggerated because it took a long time for it to become a mass-used contraceptive, it was arguably intended to make male doctors lives easier and, in some instances, it caused a negative change for women. Hence there was not a sexual revolution because the pill did not cause a rapid or wholly positive change.

Historian Jeffrey Weeks argues the 1967 Sexual Offences Act, which decriminalised homosexual acts between men over 21 in private in England and Wales, “signalled an abandonment of legal absolutism”, and many agree such legislation caused a sexual revolution in the twentieth century. However, Kate Gleeson argues that the Act was not intended to create a more accepting society but ‘in theory to control, and in practise to persecute homosexual men’, analysing the beliefs of those in Parliament to justify how the act was not passed with the liberal intentions many presume. In particular, they explore the role of Welsh MP Leo Abse, who argued the primary aim of the act was “preventing future generations of homosexuals” altogether. Additionally, they note how historians who believe homosexuals benefitted positively in this period, such as Jeffrey Weeks and Leslie Moran, hardly reference the Act itself and focus instead on the Wolfenden Report (commissioned in 1954 to investigate the high instances of homosexual crime, the report was published in 1957 and suggested de-criminalising homosexual acts between two consenting adults). One is somewhat more convinced by Gleeson’s argument than that of historians who think the Act benefitted society because unlike many, she actually explains the ideas and workings behind the Act, which is the key piece of evidence to analyse when considering if it created a positive change. John-Pierre Joyce highlights how there was little change in the number of homosexual crimes after 1967 and that because the numbers no longer included cases in private this could in fact represent an increase, to argue that in many respects, men had an easier time when their activity was underground and invisible to the public, because “as soon as the 1967 Act was passed, the police and courts had a blueprint for what was legal and what was illegal, and they used it to hound gay men.”. The 1967 Sexual Offences Act arguably left much to be desired in terms of society being more accepting towards homosexuality, therefore there was not a sexual revolution in the twentieth century because there was not a shift towards greater toleration.

Overall, despite claims that the changes which took place over the period were ‘revolutionary’, historians have shown that the more liberal attitudes adopted by some in the sixties were not adopted by all, and many never adopted them. Moreover, the benefits of the invention of the contraceptive pill and the introduction of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 have been greatly exaggerated as men and women still felt oppressed into the twenty-first century. Thus, there was sexual evolution, rather than revolution in the twentieth century, as instead of rapid change amongst all of society there was a gradual move towards increased toleration.

Bibliography

Primary sources

Lynn, Loretta, ‘The Pill’ Back to the Country (Tennessee, U.S., 1972).

Secondary sources

Brown, Callum G., Sex, Religion, and the Single Woman c.1950–75: The Importance of a ‘Short’ Sexual Revolution to the English Religious Crisis of the Sixties, Twentieth Century British History, 22:2 (2011), pp 189–215, <doi-org.bris.idm.oclc.org/10.1093/tcbh/hwq048> [accessed 7th January 2021].

Cook, Hera, ‘‘Truly it Felt Like Year One’: The English Sexual Revolution’ in The Long Sexual Revolution: English Women, Sex, and Contraception, 1800-1975 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

Garton, Stephen, ‘Sexual Revolution’ in Histories of Sexuality: Antiquity to Sexual Revolution, (London: Equinox Publishing Ltd, 2004).

Gleeson, Kate, Freudian Slips and Coteries of Vice: The Sexual Offences Act of 1967, Parliamentary History 27: 3, (2008).

Jones, Emma L., Pemberton, Neil, ‘Ten Rillington Place and the Changing Politics of Abortion in Modern Britain’ The Historical Journal, 57:4 (2014), pp1085-1109 <DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X14000399> [accessed 7th January 2021].

Jones, Katherine, ‘'Men Too': Masculinities and Contraceptive Politics in Late Twentieth Century Britain’ Contemporary British History, 34:1 (2019), pp44-70 <DOI: 10.1080/13619462.2019.1621170> [accessed 7th January 2021].

Joyce, John-Pierre, The Road to Equality: The Sexual Offences Act of 1967, History Today, 67:7, (2017), pp11-13.

McLaren, Angus, Twentieth-century sexuality: A History, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 1999).

Murphy, Michael. “The Contraceptive Pill and Women's Employment as Factors in Fertility Change in Britain 1963-1980: A Challenge to the Conventional View.” Population Studies, 47:2, (1993), pp. 221–243, <www.jstor.org/stable/2174728> [accessed 7th January 2021].

Robinson, Ira, et al. “Twenty Years of the Sexual Revolution, 1965-1985: An Update.” Journal of Marriage and Family, 53:1, (1991), pp. 216–220.

Szreter, Simon, Fisher, Kate, Sex Before the Sexual Revolution: Intimate Life in England 1918-1963 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).

Weeks, Jeffrey, ‘An Unfinished Revolution: Sexuality in the Twentieth Century’, in Making Sexual History, (Cambridge, Polity Press, 2000).

Cover Image Credit: Thought Catalog on Unsplash