Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.

View Active Topics       View Your Posts       Latest 100 Topics       FAQ Topics       Mobile Friendly Theme

Women had more orgasms back in the 1950s

Discuss and talk about any general topic.

Moderators: jamesbond, fschmidt

Post Reply
Freshman Poster
Posts: 7
Joined: June 8th, 2016, 5:18 am

Women had more orgasms back in the 1950s

Post by Randolph » July 11th, 2016, 7:58 am

If I look through some old Kinsey report data from 1948/1953 I find the following: ... #Questions

39-47 percent of women easily had orgasms during sex (as opposed to other sex acts) back in the 1950s. Modern figures are lower. There is no truth to the idea that sex was of much lower quality before the sexual revolution. Married people had sex more often, and the sex was not of low quality. But, a lot of people think that sex was terrible back before the sexual revolution.

Look at this topic on this forum: ... make_mens/

Some people, including some red pill types, believe things like this about the past:
My older female relatives especially espoused this. They were from an era where sex was a duty and meant for the man's pleasure. Sex for them was a means to an end or something you did to keep the man providing your livelihood pleased so that you could... live.
""I think up until the mid 20th century the majority of women viewed sex as an exchange for the "romance" and "provision" they got from their husbands.""
Women would never have agreed to it if they weren't getting something good out of sex. And too often, women didn't, before the 60's. Women put up with sex to keep their husbands and to get children. Even then, many women refused sex most of the time, with husbands only getting quick duty sex once or twice a month. Husbands gave women bad sex because sex was thought to be all about men. No build up, no focus on the woman - all-in-all a pretty boring and often painful experience for a woman.
And I have read that pre-1960s sex was terrible other times. And been told that it was.

False stuff, but that is what a lot of people actually believe. And they don't have to be leftists to believe it. The main difference between sex within marriage now and sex before the "sexless marriages revolution" is that people had sex more often in the past.

What I wonder is: where did the idea that sex was terrible before the sixties originate? Obviously the idea that sex was terrible before the sixties is a very useful cultural myth for the left. It keeps people thinking of the past as the bad old days. Would we have anything to gain by getting rid of this myth? It was definitely used to help sell the sexual revolution.

Junior Poster
Posts: 600
Joined: November 23rd, 2014, 4:45 am

Re: Women had more or****s back in the 1950s

Post by retiredfrank » July 12th, 2016, 2:43 am

Kinsey report is crap. Same report concluded homosexuals are like 10% of the population rather than 2%. And yes, the sex was often horrible in the past for women, though they were mostly to blame for that, since women have always had the option of living alone in the USA and no arranged marriages. If the guy wasn't able and willing to bring his fiancee off using fingers or mouth while courting her, she should have known he wouldn't be able and willing to do so with intercourse, and so shouldn't have married him. If he quit trying later, go back and live with her parents. Women always had power to force men to try in bed.

Sex is still bad, and women are to blame for that entirely since now they have more freedom. Women think they get power by rationing sex to men, but it's a false sort of power. Like cutting off your nose to spite your face. The pill is also a big factor in killing women's sex drive, and women have control over that too, since IUDs are now a very viable alternative.

Veteran Poster
Posts: 2484
Joined: July 31st, 2014, 3:52 am

Re: Women had more or****s back in the 1950s

Post by MrMan » July 12th, 2016, 6:21 pm

Kinsey's research was ground-breaking because such topics weren't research, but from what I hear, his research was also garbage by current standards. His methodology was not sound. One of the research methodology experts back then whose works are still used and cited by academic researchers today told Kinsey that he'd rather seem him use a random sample of 100 people than 10,000 people he'd met in bars. Kinsey apparently did interviews with sexual libertines. Apparently, some little kids were being molested for his research as well. You can read accounts of people who claim to have been molested to collect research by him, or at least one, by her father, I think it was.

So the people Kinsey interviewed who were really into sex probably had lots more orgasms than the general public back then. I'm not saying women had more or less orgasms. I'm just saying Kinsey's stuff back then wasn't reliable.

Selection bias was a huge issue. If one pervert introduced him to another, who introduced him to another, who hung out with a group of oversexed bi-sexuals, his sample wasn't representative of the general population. Just even to find someone who would talk about their sex life freely in 1950 probably introduced a selection bias, since the type that would participate were probably not typical of the general population the results were supposed to represent.

LGBT activists cite Kinsey to say 10% of the US population is homosexual. His research was totally unreliable.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Last post

Return to “General Discussions”