Talk:Permissive society

This page was proposed for deletion by Philoserf (talk · contribs) on 31 December 2022.

[Untitled]

The link from Sexual revolution does not show in the "What links here" list. Yes I know it stops at 500, but if you have a look a it you'll see that there's only one other link. This is the reason why I created a new link in the first place. <KF> 21:08, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Aspects that often change as a society becomes more permissive:"

Do they? Examples anyone?Grace Note 04:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) I've rewritten the bit about how some view permissiveness. I'd hope that "some" and "others" would turn into people with actual opinions in version 1.0!Grace Note 04:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have a related complaint: I changed "and censorship decreases" to "and censorship of these and other arts decreases". I did this since, although censorship of for example, mass media, can decrease in 'permissive societies', it (mass media censorship) can also increase in other forms. My point is, there are different kinds of censorship, so I changed the sentence to make it more specific. Maybe, a citation is needed for showing that other forms of censorship also decrease. For example, state censorship in the mass media may decrease in such a society, but at least self censorship of mass media outlets definitely increases dramatically.

Not the Norm?

Whenever the word "Norm" is thrown around, people need to establish, VERY SPECIFICALLY what that means. Is this the norm of a previously nonpremissive society? of all societies? of a society that frowns upon BDS&M? Adultery and "Fetishes" have been around since time immemorial, a hypothetical society that was free of both these supposed "aberrations" would be very abnormal indeed. 68.13.72.138 (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have resolved this. Changed "not the norm" to "previously considered unacceptable or even criminalized". I also dropped bisexuality - I think it has negligible independence from attitudes on the homosexual component. Alsee (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norm would refer to social norm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_norm.

I think talking about the permissive society without regard to it's use in progressive and conservative circles regarding challenging traditional social norms would be a reason to delete this article. 'Permissive society' didn't exist in a vacuum, it was a term used to describe a changing society where traditional social norms / mores were losing observance.

And yes in the traditional society that is not permissive (UK / anglosphere use as it would appear), the social norms and conventions did from upon basically any sort of 'sexual deviance' whatsoever; and yes it was very much a hypothetical society in which the supposed 'aberrations' did not exist. The existence of the norm that can be violated, condemning that behaviour implies that existence of that behaviour. Dwardyboy (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this opinion or fact?

"For example, lower divorce rates, decreasing the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases, and controlling crime are all desirable."

That sentence is written as if it were stating hard facts. While decreasing rate of STDs and controlling crime are obvious, I have to question why lowering divorce rates benefits society - from a religious perspective, it might, but not being religious I can't see any possible benefit to reducing the divorce rate. In fact, quite the opposite - forcing partners to stay in wedlock while it makes them terribly unhappy is obviously a bad thing for them and thus bad for the society with which they interact.

I would suggest removing 'divorce rates' from your assertion. Guy.fraser1 (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lower divorce rates could also mean lower marriage rates between ill-suited people. I think that people on both sides can agree that mis-matched people would be better off not marrying in the first place than marrying and divorcing. --70.41.70.6 (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

human relationships are dynamic, just because people "match" when they marry, this doesn't have to be like this 1, 10 or 30 years later. --MrBurns (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

non-essentials

This article begins with a definition by non-essentials. It's the dumbest Wikipedia article I've seen in a while. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this article seems kind of weak. Where is the specific term even from? Why does it have its own wikipedia article? I can't tell if it's referring to a specific thing or just a general concept of permissiveness. ~CharityB — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharityBrighton (talk • contribs) 00:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a phrase widely used in the 1970s (and perhaps 1960s), e.g. in the UK, referring to the societal changes of the time, and the phrase has 120,000 Google hits, so I think it merits an article. Ben Finn (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppressive society

The final paragraph treats the term "oppressive society as if it is the opposite of "permissive society". This is not necessarily so - the opposite of permissive society could be "socially conservative society". Vorbee (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to edit this article because it's quite bad.

I've found some reliable sources to go off regarding the 'permissive society' and I'm going to start from there and either link to the No hyperlink found or not.

Appalling article. And talk page needs to cool their heads. Yes, norms were more of a thing. It should not be stated as a given that divorce rates increasing is bad, but it's not good either. What's important is the way people viewed this at the time. I will trust the sources for that. But re homosexuality/BDSM/sexual liberation - the permissive society appears to have been used by progressive liberals as progress towards a truly free society. Having said that there's nothing inherently good about BDSM/sexual liberation/homosexuality, but norms of a society that prevent expression even in private of a person's sexual identity and otherwise is not a good thing. (just for the talk page) 2403:4800:3839:E101:286E:55BA:A0AA:48EA (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]