Sexual Revolution is a pathetic misnomer. The most popularnfeature of revolutions is their reversal of roles: aristocrats go tonthe scaffold, judged by the wretched of the earth. The needynare told that all their needs will be fulfilled. The greedy have allntheir luxuries withdrawn—at least temporarily. In light of thisnsimple recipe, nothing short of a mass impregnation of men bynwomen would be enough of a sexual turnaround to justify thenterm revolution.nRe Levoiutions are fomented by a mass dissatisfaction thatnengulfs a society and triggers violent outbreaks. If the 60’s cannbe considered the beginning of the upheaval, history registersnno previous tumult in the streets over the mass redistribution ofnsexual assets. What occurred was a change in attitudes—at firstnlimited to a specific stratum of politically active intelligentsia,nthen transformed by the sensationalist-prone media into a culturalnand behavioral trend. The media, as well as the entirenopinion-making trade, were striving at exactiy that time for annew role within the American civilization; they thus had a tremendousnstake in the political proposition which was encapsulatednin the slogan “make love not war.” Boundless vistasnsuddenly opened before the new breed of American powerbrokers—Manhattan’snliberal press lords and publishers. Theirnhubris and hype in matters of sex, hithetto coiifined to abysmalntrivialities, became—forthwith—endowed with ideology andndialectics. Within just a couple of years the subject had been appropriatednnot only from masters of Joycean caliber, Faulknerianngravity or even John O’Hara-like realistic bluntness, butnalso from the purveyors of sleazy Gothic prurience, a la HaroldnRobbins, and even from the peddlers of under-the-counternpornography. Ever since, sexualia has become a diversified industrynin which pseudoscholarly litterateurs are rewarded notnfor insight but for fidelity to the line currendy in vogue, andnpsychologists, sociologists and educators earn enormous sumsnfor their endless proclamations of “findings” which are so ttitenand vulgar that even half a century ago they would have beennlaughed at in men’s pubs by anyone over 18. The orgy ofnttampling the basic conventions and sensibilities of manwomanninterrelationships has been going on now for almostntwo decades: it’s not a revolution—it’s a multibillion-dollarnbusiness.nBut it also serves political purposes. Transvaluation of values,nwhich often degenerates into nihilism, has always been a welltestednweapon of the political left: many times in history sexualncustoms have proved to be malleable by political subversionnand manipulation. Eighteenth-century France and 19thcenturynRussia are excellent examples of how the dissolution ofnmores can serve political gains, how ideas of spurious egalitarianismnand perverted freedom can benefit from being associatednwith the destruction of tenets that underlie sexual sensitivities—onenof the most important human claims to betternessnand civility. Yet, what is going on now in America somehownChronicles of Cttlturen’ THE MYTH OF THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION ‘nEDITOR’S COMMENTnnnttanscends political games: we are witnessing a different competitionnfor power, one that goes beyond politics and aims at anmore complete submission of man to doctrines. Therefore,nputting worn-out labels—like secular humanism, liberal valuelessnessnor amoral radicalism—on the cynical promoters of sexualn”liberation” won’t do.nX he phoniness of the term sexual “revolution” lies in thenfact that it proposes nothing new—which is exactiy what revolutionsnare supposed to do. The “prerevolutionary” Americannstmcture of sexual values was predicated on the chronic shortagenof women on this continent; the residues of this long-forgottennsociodemographic condition were manifested, until recently,nin what we still can see in old movies: men taking theirnhats offwhen a woman enters an elevator. The gist ofthe “revolution”ncan thus be grotesquely, but not unbelievably, summarizednby what men now might take offwhen a woman entersna New York elevator, especially if some followers of punk lifestylesnare already inside. (Some modish ads go even further andnporttay, perhaps not entirely unrealistically, what could happennto a young and handsome lift operator when an avowednfeminist executive enters—and we are barely 20 years removednfrom The Apartment, a Billy Wilder movie, a touching lovenstory on the theme of executives, elevators and their femalenoperators.) Woman as a protected and respected combinationnof species cum symbol is out these days, extinguished by socialntheories, feminism and modish concepts of conduct; she’s alsonout as an idiosyncratic component of a culture, a category fornitself where conventional separateness determines customs andnmanners, but not the mdiments of existence. Thus, what happenednto woman is not a revolution but the obliteration of ancivilizational pattern. That does not change reality, merely impoverishesnit.nX he next casualty is sexuality’s preciousness, uniqueness,nits purely human quality, unknown in the animal world, whichnmates simply according to nature and season, without imbuingnthe procreative drive with any other sustaining contents.nTliere was always a good deal of robtist lustiness in the fabricnof American life and folklore, the natural vigor of men andnwomen in a bountiful land of hard work, fearful dangers andncherished freedoms. Just like everywhere else, sexuality herenwas a source of passion, happiness, ttagedy. The vitality andnenergy which became the national characteristics of Americansngave sexuality a sensationalist tinge which was particularlynnoticeable during the era of conquest, exploration and daringnadventurousness of pioneer life. On the other hand, the excessesnof individualism inherent in this social ambiance had to benregulated somehow by principles and precepts—the rigidity ofnwhich often resulted in conventions that were less normativenthan hypocritical. Religion, which, in Europe, had ttied forn