The Times They are A'Changing...but not EZily.

My eldest son posted a link on our family Slack channel this morning for a YouTube video of old-school dancers reset to very modern music. That video reminded me of one I had seen earlier, available, as of this date, on YouTube as Old Movie Stars Dance to Uptown Funk (https://youtu.be/M1F0lBnsnkE). Both videos are very well crafted, but I must admit I like the Old Movie Stars video better, and I watched it through its nearly five-minute play-time several times.

I have a few take-away thoughts after watching the video. Primarily, I was surprised to note the sensuality of the dress and the movements, some clearly erotic in intent and presentation, of the dances and the choreography of these moving images--most from the first half of the 20th Century. These would have been the images that I would have been introduced to as acceptable, and even lauded, 'entertainment' and 'dancing' as I grew up, along with my cohort of boomers born between 1946 and 1964.

The '50s are called a conservative, family-oriented time. And they were. But much less prudish than most may think. Then, we came of age with Elvis-the-pelvis, the Beatles, Chubby Checker and the Twist, Lenny Bruce, and into the tumultuous world-shaking year of 1968 and the "sexual revolution" of the '70s and '80s.

Nineteen Sixty-Eight was especially shaking. The History Channel, on its Website, says, "The year 1968 remains one of the most tumultuous single years in history, marked by historic achievements, shocking assassinations, a much-hated war and a spirit of rebellion that swept through countries all over the world."

Some say we lost our innocence in the fall of 1963. If so, 1968 was the year that our youth vocally demanded something in return for that loss.

In that year alone we watched and listened as Czechoslovakia overthrew the Stalinists only to be reinvaded and occupied by the Soviets. North Korea captured a U.S. Ship, the Pueblo, and its crew. The North Vietnamese launched the Tet Offensive against the South and our supporting forces while T.V. brought the horrors of that war into our living rooms on the evening news. February 18th, 1968, my mother's birthday, the U.S. announced the deadliest week of combat during the Vietnam War: 2,547 wounded, 543 dead in one week. On March 16th, Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) announced that he would run against President Lyndon B. Johnson for the Democratic nomination for president -- that same day U.S. troops murdered over 500 Vietnamese civilians in the My Lai massacre. In March, Johnson announced that he would not run for re-election. On June 5th, RFK was assassinated. Of course, his brother, President John F. Kennedy, had been assassinated in 1963. Martin Luther King had been assassinated in April, putting a horrible exclamation point after nearly two decades of work and some progress in Civil Rights in the U.S. Throughout the spring and summer of 1968, students around the world demonstrated demanding civil rights and government reform. Perhaps nothing sums up that summer better than the events at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Turning, again, to the History Channel's Website, we find the following description: "In August, thousands of students, antiwar activists and other demonstrators—including groups like the Yippies, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and the Black Panthers—poured into Chicago, where they were met with a violent police response called out by [Democratic] Mayor Richard Daley. As TV cameras captured the bloody clashes between police and demonstrators, the chaotic convention ended in Humphrey’s nomination as the head of an embattled Democratic Party." The year was especially traumatic in Mexico, host of the Summer Olympics, itself a site of dramatic televised political protests. In October of that year, Mexican police opened fire on a group of demonstrating students and other civilians in Mexico City. The actual death toll of the Tlatelolco massacre is unknown but is widely estimated to be around 400. Indeed the Mexican government's "dirty war" on its own citizens may have cost thousands of lives in 1968 alone. In November Richard Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey in the presidential election by a sizeable margin in the electoral college but a razor-thin popular vote win. On Christmas Eve, Apollo 8, with Jim Lovell in charge, orbited the moon. Glenda and I had married on August 16th, 1968. On November 22, 1968, the fifth anniversary of President Kennedy's assassination, my father died of a stroke and my mother entered her 20-year widowhood. One year--1968.

From 1968 and on into the sexual revolution of the '70s and '80s. These years saw an increased acceptance of sex outside of traditional heterosexual, monogamous relationships and the wide-spread use of oral birth control. The normalization of contraception and the pill, public nudity, pornography, premarital sex, homosexuality, masturbation, alternative forms of sexuality, and the legalization of abortion all followed. Society changed--marriage rates declined and divorce rates climbed. Cities and campuses nationwide saw large demonstrations against traditional rules involving nudity and public sex. Some of these were called "Love-ins" and focussed on meditation, love, music, sex, and psychedelic drugs. The Kent State shootings and Woodstock happened. Feminism became an open topic, and women burned their bras. It was in the summer of 1969 that I first saw a young-adult woman walking nonchalantly down a public street bare-breasted.

So...how did we get from there to here?

Here being now when progressives are showing themselves to be essentially prudes while still supporting a libertine lifestyle--but that lifestyle must be hidden or covered. Members of the younger generation are uncomfortable with nudity and shocked to find that Americans used to regularly and without drama see and be seen naked in gymnasium dressing rooms and showers. They are frankly unbelieving when told that swimming in the nude (generally in gender-segregated fashion) was the norm in the U.S. until the end of the '50s. They avert their eyes quickly as in shame when shown a picture of a large tiled shower with plumbing for six or more. Many seem to feel incomplete without shaming others (as the un-woke) while assuring that they arrogantly signal their virtue to all around. Many of their earlier heroes and stars have been found wanting, with feet of clay--as proven, for example, with those who (rightfully) fell to the #MeToo movement.

We of a certain age find all of this confusing and incomprehensible. Blogger Nathanael Blake says, "Our cultural elites are embracing libertine prudishness in an attempt to rebuild a culture. But they lack a culture to build around. They are trying to establish a sense of sacrilege without anything being sacred. They want us to seek the good of others while denying any doctrine of the common good or idea of human flourishing beyond self-indulgence. The result is an ideology that is a mashup of occultist Aleister Crowley (“Do as thou wilt”) and Emily Post." Anything goes, as long as it's hidden. We, your elders, don't see the culture being rebuilt in a constructive manner.

The turn of the Century: 9-11; wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; 2008; the Arab Spring followed by severe government oppression; Clinton, Trump, and Coronavirus. I've said it before, and I must say it again: This is NOT the Twenty-First Century I expected to live in.

Empathy is not always EZ.

I participate in a Facebook-based support group for prostate cancer sufferers, patients, survivors, and their supporting family, friends, and lovers. There have been many discussions of the symptoms and impact on the body of the cancer and the effectiveness and side effects of the various treatments. Side effects that often include urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction (ED) formerly known as impotence. Everyone's journey through this often fatal landscape is wildly unique and different. Today one of the partners of a cancer sufferer posted a note that ED just didn't matter and implied that forum members should just be glad to be still alive and shut up about that issue. A couple of men (both suffering extreme cancer-related life-threatening problems) posted that, in their dire situation, sex simply no longer mattered to them. The original poster (OP in today's language) then congratulated those two for "being comfortable in your own skin and for having good self esteem and for knowing what a REAL MAN is." I found her words to be insensitive and hurtful, and did not immediately have the words to respond. 

A couple of other cancer-suffering men did chime in and post to the effect that she simply did not understand. One man went so far as to call her patronizing. I'm not sure I'd have used that word. Anyway, after some time pondering, below is what I posted in reply to her REAL MAN comment:

Thank you, Robert and Henry. I wanted to respond to Patsy but needed some time to think so that I could, hopefully, respond in a way that does neither diminish those with greater problems and suffering nor hurt Patsy for her lack of understanding and empathy while making it plain that her words were hurtful.

My dear wife and I have remained committed and faithful for over 48 years. We have raised a great family who are doing well and enjoying life. I am thankful for her and our children and grandchildren, for my life, remaining health, and capabilities, and I have great sadness for those, like [name withheld here] and many others, whose situation is really much more dire and difficult. My PC was originally diagnosed as stage 2 with a Gleason of 4+3 with “excursions to 5.” Twelve of fourteen biopsy cores were positive for cancer although my PSA had never been over 4 and all of my DREs had been unremarkable. The biopsy was recommended because my PSA went from 2 to 4 in a three-month period (followed because I did have BPH, and the PSA increase was verified with a follow up and a second lab). The RP surgery proved the cancer had spread outside the prostate capsule so my diagnosis was changed to stage 3. I have, and continue, to receive what, to the best of my ability to judge, is excellent medical care and I have excellent insurance. My oncologist, supported by post-surgery pathology, believes that all the cancer was removed. At six-months post-surgery, my PSA is ND. I do recognize that in many, many ways, I’ve been exceedingly blessed.

I have no idea how to communicate the loss that my wife and I both feel, other than to say that it hurts. Our hurt in no way diminishes anyone else’s pain. But it is real. We have benefited from joint counselling post-surgery. Depression meds (for both of us) have helped.

I am as “comfortable in my own skin” as I know how to be, take responsibility for my health where I can, and continue to work full-time now that I’m past my initial recuperative period. I provide for my family and provide emotional, intellectual, loving support for my family. I ride my motorcycle regularly. My youngest daughter and I rode our bicycles in a 20-mile fund-raising event for the American Diabetes Association. I’m training for my first 5K running event in support of funding for PrCa research. I try to be supportive to others through this forum and our local chapter of Us Too. I meditate daily and do yoga on non-running days. I share the housework and read to my vision-impaired wife. She and I do enjoy intimacy and I’ve tried to be a sensitive and giving lover within my current capabilities. But our loss still hurts. It hurts her and that hurts me. And, deep down, there are the fears voiced by Henry (Explanatory note here -- Henry voiced fears on Facebook that his wife would leave him for a more capable lover) —and I do not mean to slight my wife nor disrespect her in any way when I voice this. I believe that if you have not suffered the loss of something that, for your adult life, has been part of your being and part of what you could offer in a loving relationship you probably don’t really understand. And for that, you must be forgiven.

So, Patsy, what is a real man?  And how can anyone define that for any other person?

I await her reply.