"By the way, of course, Austin Powers is a Silent, and if the movies had really been made in the 60s & early 70s Michael Caine would have played him." --Dave Krein '42


Nah, Austin Powers is a pure spin off of Matt Helm, the quintessential, and quite hilarious spoof on Cold War paranoia.

But then again, maybe old Matt, played brilliantly by GI Dean Martin, just doesn't fit the profile, right? But Michael Caine? Caine was very much the subtle "anti-hero" but, come on. :lol:

Thanks for that David Krein.

I remember going to see "Joe" in 1970. It was a "you have to see this" movie. I was just about 20, rebelling a bit, and it was disturbing, to say the least. I've always wanted to see it again, but it hasn't been available on video or not shown on any cable or tv I've had access to.

I don't remember much about the film except Susan Sarandon being blown away by Daddy. Every time I see Peter Boyle I get flashbacks.

I wonder where one could find a copy of "Joe". My husband and I operated a video store for 10 years and never came across it in our film catalogues. I'm far far away from any movie theatre that would be showing it.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: cbailey on 2002-08-05 23:28 ]</font>

cbailey - for Joe, try this: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/Joe-1011114/dvd.php

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

On 2002-08-06 05:21, David Krein wrote:
cbailey - for Joe, try this: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/Joe-1011114/dvd.php

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

Hey. Thanks.

A final, less quantifiable development has served to snuff out marital sexuality, and it has to do with the way middle- and upper-middle-class adults think about family life and their role in it. There are many indications of this, but let us simply glance at the Disney catalogue. Not surprisingly, in addition to toys and figurines the catalogue features Disney-themed clothing: bathrobes with Winnie the Pooh appliqu?s, stretch knit pants with a small Mickey Mouse at the hem, quilted "Magic Winter Jackets" featuring a choice of Eeyore, Mickey, or Pooh. Here's the problem: all these items are for adults. In fact, I was horrified to discover that it would have been possible for my husband and me to spend last Halloween trick-or-treating in matching Tweedledum and Tweedledee costumes?a pretty far cry from Marabel Morgan's idea of a good costume.


For many couples child-rearing has become not merely one aspect of marriage but its entire purpose and function. Spouses regard each other not as principally lovers and companions but as sharers of the great, unending burden of taking care of the children. And make no mistake about it: American middle-class families have made child-rearing a dauntingly complex enterprise. My children are still very small, but it has been made abundantly clear to me by friends and acquaintances that I had better get in the market for an SUV or a minivan, because I am soon enough going to be shuttling the children and their friends to a bewildering series of soccer games, soccer parties, soccer tournaments. Already I throw birthday parties with guest lists and budgets that approximate those of a wedding-rehearsal dinner. The curious thing about this labor-intensive variety of parenting is that it has arisen now, when parents?and specifically mothers?have less time to devote to their children than ever before. One can't help finding in these developments a frantic attempt at compensation for the hours some professional-class mothers spend away from their children. Mothering, which used to be a rather private affair (requiring, principally, a playpen, a back yard, a television set, and a coffeepot), has now adopted a very public dimension. Why, of course Sarah So-and-So is a good mother: little Andrew is at Gymboree, Music Rhapsody, Bright Child, and Fit for Kids every week! All of domestic life now turns on the entertainment and happiness not of the adults but of the children. At vacation time my husband and I don't drag our little boys through the Louvre, as I was dragged at a tender age (because my parents wanted to see it, and it would never have occurred to them to consult their children about where to go on holiday). Rather, we check into hotels with elaborate children's pools and nightly fireworks and huge duck ponds. It's all very jolly, but it is entirely possible, I suppose, that some parents will overidentify with the whole thing, will forget that they are in fact the adults and not the children. And if your conception of yourself is as a great big eight-year-old, you're not very likely to have sex on your mind come the end of the day.

The Wifely Duty

Marriage used to provide access to sex. Now it provides access to celibacy
by Ms. Caitlin Flanagan in the January/February 2003 number of the Atlantic.


In the bad old days:


Dark Ages



Roman

Greek

Hebrew



Oh, wonder! Oh, Brave New World!

A final, less quantifiable development has served to snuff out marital sexuality, and it has to do with the way middle- and upper-middle-class adults think about family life and their role in it. There are many indications of this, but let us simply glance at the Disney catalogue. Not surprisingly, in addition to toys and figurines the catalogue features Disney-themed clothing: bathrobes with Winnie the Pooh appliqu?s, stretch knit pants with a small Mickey Mouse at the hem, quilted "Magic Winter Jackets" featuring a choice of Eeyore, Mickey, or Pooh. Here's the problem: all these items are for adults. In fact, I was horrified to discover that it would have been possible for my husband and me to spend last Halloween trick-or-treating in matching Tweedledum and Tweedledee costumes?a pretty far cry from Marabel Morgan's idea of a good costume.


For many couples child-rearing has become not merely one aspect of marriage but its entire purpose and function. Spouses regard each other not as principally lovers and companions but as sharers of the great, unending burden of taking care of the children. And make no mistake about it: American middle-class families have made child-rearing a dauntingly complex enterprise. My children are still very small, but it has been made abundantly clear to me by friends and acquaintances that I had better get in the market for an SUV or a minivan, because I am soon enough going to be shuttling the children and their friends to a bewildering series of soccer games, soccer parties, soccer tournaments. Already I throw birthday parties with guest lists and budgets that approximate those of a wedding-rehearsal dinner. The curious thing about this labor-intensive variety of parenting is that it has arisen now, when parents?and specifically mothers?have less time to devote to their children than ever before. One can't help finding in these developments a frantic attempt at compensation for the hours some professional-class mothers spend away from their children. Mothering, which used to be a rather private affair (requiring, principally, a playpen, a back yard, a television set, and a coffeepot), has now adopted a very public dimension. Why, of course Sarah So-and-So is a good mother: little Andrew is at Gymboree, Music Rhapsody, Bright Child, and Fit for Kids every week! All of domestic life now turns on the entertainment and happiness not of the adults but of the children. At vacation time my husband and I don't drag our little boys through the Louvre, as I was dragged at a tender age (because my parents wanted to see it, and it would never have occurred to them to consult their children about where to go on holiday). Rather, we check into hotels with elaborate children's pools and nightly fireworks and huge duck ponds. It's all very jolly, but it is entirely possible, I suppose, that some parents will overidentify with the whole thing, will forget that they are in fact the adults and not the children. And if your conception of yourself is as a great big eight-year-old, you're not very likely to have sex on your mind come the end of the day.

The Wifely Duty

Marriage used to provide access to sex. Now it provides access to celibacy
by Ms. Caitlin Flanagan in the January/February 2003 number of the Atlantic.


In the bad old days:


Dark Ages



Roman

Greek

Hebrew



Oh, wonder! Oh, Brave New World!

I read three articles in the latest Atlantic: the one above, one on Porn and Blue Zone voters, and one on Sex Week at an Ivy League institution; then Minnesota Public Radio had a special on "Spirituality and Sex":


Christianity has overwhelmingly shaped American attitudes toward sex. Speaking of Faith cracks open the subjects of Christian tradition and healthy sexuality.

Sadly very few cracks were even widened...much less left ope.


If this is the ashes of the sexual revolution; okay. The married don't want sex. The voters want to just watch. The campus is just debate and mechanics. The churches wish it would go away. Revolutions usually end up in tears...it seems it wasn't all that much fun after all. What went wrong with the Boomers? Do advise.

I read three articles in the latest Atlantic: the one above, one on Porn and Blue Zone voters, and one on Sex Week at an Ivy League institution; then Minnesota Public Radio had a special on "Spirituality and Sex":


Christianity has overwhelmingly shaped American attitudes toward sex. Speaking of Faith cracks open the subjects of Christian tradition and healthy sexuality.

Sadly very few cracks were even widened...much less left ope.


If this is the ashes of the sexual revolution; okay. The married don't want sex. The voters want to just watch. The campus is just debate and mechanics. The churches wish it would go away. Revolutions usually end up in tears...it seems it wasn't all that much fun after all. What went wrong with the Boomers? Do advise.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

I read three articles in the latest Atlantic: the one above, one on Porn and Blue Zone voters, and one on Sex Week at an Ivy League institution; then Minnesota Public Radio had a special on "Spirituality and Sex":


Christianity has overwhelmingly shaped American attitudes toward sex. Speaking of Faith cracks open the subjects of Christian tradition and healthy sexuality.

Sadly very few cracks were even widened...much less left ope.


If this is the ashes of the sexual revolution; okay. The married don't want sex. The voters want to just watch. The campus is just debate and mechanics. The churches wish it would go away. Revolutions usually end up in tears...it seems it wasn't all that much fun after all. What went wrong with the Boomers? Do advise.

The American people rejected the Sexual Revolution in about 1999, when they realized that the rich degenerates in the Democratic Party were using sex as a weapon against their rights. Specifically, they were deriding gun owners as being men with small penises who were trying to overcompensate. The Clinton Administration actually went so far as to consult the illegal Brady Act database to find out which men were gunowners, then sent e-mails to their fiancees urging them to break off their relationships. They did the same to veterans of the Armed Services, since obviously anybody so unchic as to have joined the military didn't deserve any action. Keep in mind that the men targeted here were not Republican or other right-wing activists; they were just ordinary American working men who weren't cool enough for Paul Begala. Millions of lives were ruined by this evil group.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

I read three articles in the latest Atlantic: the one above, one on Porn and Blue Zone voters, and one on Sex Week at an Ivy League institution; then Minnesota Public Radio had a special on "Spirituality and Sex":


Christianity has overwhelmingly shaped American attitudes toward sex. Speaking of Faith cracks open the subjects of Christian tradition and healthy sexuality.

Sadly very few cracks were even widened...much less left ope.


If this is the ashes of the sexual revolution; okay. The married don't want sex. The voters want to just watch. The campus is just debate and mechanics. The churches wish it would go away. Revolutions usually end up in tears...it seems it wasn't all that much fun after all. What went wrong with the Boomers? Do advise.

The American people rejected the Sexual Revolution in about 1999, when they realized that the rich degenerates in the Democratic Party were using sex as a weapon against their rights. Specifically, they were deriding gun owners as being men with small penises who were trying to overcompensate. The Clinton Administration actually went so far as to consult the illegal Brady Act database to find out which men were gunowners, then sent e-mails to their fiancees urging them to break off their relationships. They did the same to veterans of the Armed Services, since obviously anybody so unchic as to have joined the military didn't deserve any action. Keep in mind that the men targeted here were not Republican or other right-wing activists; they were just ordinary American working men who weren't cool enough for Paul Begala. Millions of lives were ruined by this evil group.

Originally Posted by cbailey

Turned on to pot, but never really enjoying it, because it interfered with their drinking.

Describes my younger days.

Not the rest of the description, though.

Originally Posted by cbailey

Turned on to pot, but never really enjoying it, because it interfered with their drinking.

Describes my younger days.

Not the rest of the description, though.

It's funny that someone revived this topic because the first post I saw on the top of the page was about the Swinging Silents and how they tried so desperately to look "cool" and be attractive to young Boomer women. I was just having this conversation with my friend today about our Silent fathers. My parents divorced in the early 70s, and my formerly conventional just-missed-being-a-GI father suddenly grew his graying brown hair to neck-length, and sported a mustache. His attire became garish and featured such things as wide paisley ties, "stovepipe" (the old fogies' version of bellbottoms) trousers, and even floral swimtrunks. He even took up smoking pot occasionally at parties. (So did my mom, but unlike my dad, she never had a temporary lapse in tasteful fashion sense). My friends' parents, even though they remained (and still remain) married, also went through such temporary cultural insanity.
Austin Powers syndrome (and its female counterpart, Mrs. Robinson syndrome) was everywhere feeling-their-age Silents could be found.

It's funny that someone revived this topic because the first post I saw on the top of the page was about the Swinging Silents and how they tried so desperately to look "cool" and be attractive to young Boomer women. I was just having this conversation with my friend today about our Silent fathers. My parents divorced in the early 70s, and my formerly conventional just-missed-being-a-GI father suddenly grew his graying brown hair to neck-length, and sported a mustache. His attire became garish and featured such things as wide paisley ties, "stovepipe" (the old fogies' version of bellbottoms) trousers, and even floral swimtrunks. He even took up smoking pot occasionally at parties. (So did my mom, but unlike my dad, she never had a temporary lapse in tasteful fashion sense). My friends' parents, even though they remained (and still remain) married, also went through such temporary cultural insanity.
Austin Powers syndrome (and its female counterpart, Mrs. Robinson syndrome) was everywhere feeling-their-age Silents could be found.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

I read three articles in the latest Atlantic: the one above, one on Porn and Blue Zone voters, and one on Sex Week at an Ivy League institution; then Minnesota Public Radio had a special on "Spirituality and Sex":


Christianity has overwhelmingly shaped American attitudes toward sex. Speaking of Faith cracks open the subjects of Christian tradition and healthy sexuality.

Sadly very few cracks were even widened...much less left ope.


If this is the ashes of the sexual revolution; okay. The married don't want sex. The voters want to just watch. The campus is just debate and mechanics. The churches wish it would go away. Revolutions usually end up in tears...it seems it wasn't all that much fun after all. What went wrong with the Boomers? Do advise.

They're still trying to cast the '98 election defeat for the GOP as being a punishment for going after Clinton. They simply don't get it.

As for the Sexual Revolution, what else could one have expected?

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

I read three articles in the latest Atlantic: the one above, one on Porn and Blue Zone voters, and one on Sex Week at an Ivy League institution; then Minnesota Public Radio had a special on "Spirituality and Sex":


Christianity has overwhelmingly shaped American attitudes toward sex. Speaking of Faith cracks open the subjects of Christian tradition and healthy sexuality.

Sadly very few cracks were even widened...much less left ope.


If this is the ashes of the sexual revolution; okay. The married don't want sex. The voters want to just watch. The campus is just debate and mechanics. The churches wish it would go away. Revolutions usually end up in tears...it seems it wasn't all that much fun after all. What went wrong with the Boomers? Do advise.

They're still trying to cast the '98 election defeat for the GOP as being a punishment for going after Clinton. They simply don't get it.

As for the Sexual Revolution, what else could one have expected?

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

It's funny that someone revived this topic because the first post I saw on the top of the page was about the Swinging Silents and how they tried so desperately to look "cool" and be attractive to young Boomer women. I was just having this conversation with my friend today about our Silent fathers. My parents divorced in the early 70s, and my formerly conventional just-missed-being-a-GI father suddenly grew his graying brown hair to neck-length, and sported a mustache. His attire became garish and featured such things as wide paisley ties, "stovepipe" (the old fogies' version of bellbottoms) trousers, and even floral swimtrunks. He even took up smoking pot occasionally at parties. (So did my mom, but unlike my dad, she never had a temporary lapse in tasteful fashion sense). My friends' parents, even though they remained (and still remain) married, also went through such temporary cultural insanity.
Austin Powers syndrome (and its female counterpart, Mrs. Robinson syndrome) was everywhere feeling-their-age Silents could be found.

It's understandable, in one sense. They were, in many cases, just too old to have been part of something that gave the illusion of being enviable and positive. Many had wanted to do much of what the Boomers were doing, and had thought it simply wasn't an option, only to see it begin just after they settled into married life or a stable career.

Just chalk it up as more damage from the Awakening.

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

It's funny that someone revived this topic because the first post I saw on the top of the page was about the Swinging Silents and how they tried so desperately to look "cool" and be attractive to young Boomer women. I was just having this conversation with my friend today about our Silent fathers. My parents divorced in the early 70s, and my formerly conventional just-missed-being-a-GI father suddenly grew his graying brown hair to neck-length, and sported a mustache. His attire became garish and featured such things as wide paisley ties, "stovepipe" (the old fogies' version of bellbottoms) trousers, and even floral swimtrunks. He even took up smoking pot occasionally at parties. (So did my mom, but unlike my dad, she never had a temporary lapse in tasteful fashion sense). My friends' parents, even though they remained (and still remain) married, also went through such temporary cultural insanity.
Austin Powers syndrome (and its female counterpart, Mrs. Robinson syndrome) was everywhere feeling-their-age Silents could be found.

It's understandable, in one sense. They were, in many cases, just too old to have been part of something that gave the illusion of being enviable and positive. Many had wanted to do much of what the Boomers were doing, and had thought it simply wasn't an option, only to see it begin just after they settled into married life or a stable career.

Just chalk it up as more damage from the Awakening.

For many couples child-rearing has become not merely one aspect of marriage but its entire purpose and function.

Child-rearing is the main purpose for marriage, at least for young people. How is marriage different from co-habitation? What is different is the degree of committment intended. The intent of a co-habitation relationship is the couple will remain together as long as it is good for both of them. The intent for a maritial relationship is the couple will remain together "for better or for worse", that is, even if it becomes bad for both of them.

Now who can benefit from a marriage between two people that is bad for both of them? Obviously neither the husband or the wife. It's the children who can benefit.

For many couples child-rearing has become not merely one aspect of marriage but its entire purpose and function.

Child-rearing is the main purpose for marriage, at least for young people. How is marriage different from co-habitation? What is different is the degree of committment intended. The intent of a co-habitation relationship is the couple will remain together as long as it is good for both of them. The intent for a maritial relationship is the couple will remain together "for better or for worse", that is, even if it becomes bad for both of them.

Now who can benefit from a marriage between two people that is bad for both of them? Obviously neither the husband or the wife. It's the children who can benefit.

The Sexual Revolution's most unappealing aspect was that it was so, well...unsexy. A serious romantic relationship...that's sexy. Even a little "on the side," while immoral, can be a turn-on. What isn't sexy is that whole Ally McBeal pseudo-feminist crap, or "if it feels good, do it."

Save sex. Repeal the Sexual Revolution now.

The Sexual Revolution's most unappealing aspect was that it was so, well...unsexy. A serious romantic relationship...that's sexy. Even a little "on the side," while immoral, can be a turn-on. What isn't sexy is that whole Ally McBeal pseudo-feminist crap, or "if it feels good, do it."

Save sex. Repeal the Sexual Revolution now.

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

The Sexual Revolution's most unappealing aspect was that it was so, well...unsexy. A serious romantic relationship...that's sexy. Even a little "on the side," while immoral, can be a turn-on. What isn't sexy is that whole Ally McBeal pseudo-feminist crap, or "if it feels good, do it."

Save sex. Repeal the Sexual Revolution now.

I completely agree. Anonymous sex or sex without affection is sad and sordid, not erotic. It's degrading, not uplifting.
The most erotic sex takes place between people who are deeply in love.
Then the sex act itself becomes a celebration of love and can even be deeply spiritual.
Between strangers, the sex act is anything but spiritual. It is all about the body and getting physical needs satisfied. Not much different from voiding.

I am not saying casual sex or sex with strangers is necessarily wrong, and maybe for some people it is enough. But for myself, no. I for one welcome the return of romance.

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

The Sexual Revolution's most unappealing aspect was that it was so, well...unsexy. A serious romantic relationship...that's sexy. Even a little "on the side," while immoral, can be a turn-on. What isn't sexy is that whole Ally McBeal pseudo-feminist crap, or "if it feels good, do it."

Save sex. Repeal the Sexual Revolution now.

I completely agree. Anonymous sex or sex without affection is sad and sordid, not erotic. It's degrading, not uplifting.
The most erotic sex takes place between people who are deeply in love.
Then the sex act itself becomes a celebration of love and can even be deeply spiritual.
Between strangers, the sex act is anything but spiritual. It is all about the body and getting physical needs satisfied. Not much different from voiding.

I am not saying casual sex or sex with strangers is necessarily wrong, and maybe for some people it is enough. But for myself, no. I for one welcome the return of romance.

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

The Sexual Revolution's most unappealing aspect was that it was so, well...unsexy. A serious romantic relationship...that's sexy. Even a little "on the side," while immoral, can be a turn-on. What isn't sexy is that whole Ally McBeal pseudo-feminist crap, or "if it feels good, do it."

Save sex. Repeal the Sexual Revolution now.

I completely agree. Anonymous sex or sex without affection is sad and sordid, not erotic. It's degrading, not uplifting.
The most erotic sex takes place between people who are deeply in love.
Then the sex act itself becomes a celebration of love and can even be deeply spiritual.
Between strangers, the sex act is anything but spiritual. It is all about the body and getting physical needs satisfied. Not much different from voiding.

I agree with both of you. The whole Sex and the City-type attitude toward sex and relationships is utilitarian and depressing. It's as if people think you can somehow separate what you do with your body from the rest of you - your mind, soul and emotions. There's very little emphasis placed on actually *loving* the other person.

I for one welcome the return of romance.

So do I, and that's one of the reasons I'm glad I'll be coming of age as part of a Civic generation who (hopefully) will help bring back more a romantic, personalist approach to sex.