Is the sexual revolution truly benefitting women?

Dr Belle Tindall explains sexual disenchantment, highlighting two extreme examples

There’s a place where secular feminism and I hit an almighty fork in the road and are forced to walk down two different paths. That piece of road is sexual disenchantment. 

Let me break open what I mean by that phrase. The first thing to note is that I’m borrowing it; it belongs to American writer, Aaron Sibarium. It’s the idea that sex is (in itself) a pretty meaningless thing; you can give it meaning if you like – but that’s your call, your responsibility, your problem. In and of itself, sex is nothing more than an activity; a neutral, run-of-the-mill thing that we do. It need be no more meaningful than making someone a coffee, no more intimate than playing a board game with them, no more vulnerable than taking a stroll in their company. Like I say, sex is just a thing that we do in a sea of a thousand other things we do on any given day – it has nothing special, sacred or spiritual attached to it. It’s neutral. It’s benign. It’s disenchanted.