The New Morality

An exclusive poll on what Americans really think about sex

After at least a decade of the famous Sexual Revolution, it is often assumed that most Americans have entered a state known as the New Morality. It is a condition in which pleasure is the principle, living in sin is no sin, and more or less anything, between consenting adults, goes. Yet although some observers have proclaimed the revolution triumphant, new battles keep breaking out. Examples:

> In St. Paul, where Planned Parenthood opened a new headquarters and a clinic for abortions and birth control, the building was doused with gasoline and set afire earlier this year. Rebuilt, it now is being picketed daily. Says Tom Webber, executive director of Planned Parenthood of Minnesota: "They say the rosary here. They chant it in a circle on our front sidewalk. A nun even splashed our building with holy water. My life has been threatened a number of times, all in the name of a higher morality."

> Los Angeles, once in the vanguard of public hedonism, has imposed a temporary moratorium on new sex movie theaters, pornographic bookstores and massage parlors. Under the revised zoning rules, which were modeled on a Detroit ordinance that has been copied in a number of other cities, no such business may open within 1,000 feet of a similar business or within 500 feet of a residential area, school, church or park.

> In Atlanta, Judge William Alexander of the Fulton County State Court ordered Larry Flynt, publisher of Hustler, to stand trial on charges of disseminating obscene material. Flynt, who faces similar charges in neighboring Gwinnett County, is free on bail while appealing a seven- to 25-year sentence in Cincinnati. The new trials could mean added penalties of up to 17 years.

After an era of revolution, is a counterrevolution under way? Is it even possible that the revolution never really succeeded, that much of America watched the New Morality--voyeuristically--without abandoning the Old Morality? Recent years undeniably have brought major changes to America's social patterns, most notably a greater openness about sex and a greater acceptance of premarital sex, homosexuality and abortion. But young people who favor the new standards are still paying a high price in family conflicts, and conservative protesters are increasingly vociferous. On all sides there are doubts and misgivings.

Listen to a few people talking: "When I first told my parents I had a new roommate, they immediately knew what was going on," says Kathy Lance, 27, a graduate student in education, who has been living with a man in Lawrence, Kans., for the past year. "My mother's first words were, 'Don't do all the cooking and cleaning.' But she was very disappointed. She just feels that it's not really right. She likes to say things like, 'With your brains, you should be using your college education.' She would like for me to teach school, then get married and have children."

"I know what is going on with my daughter, but I don't want to see it, and I don't want to discuss it with her," says Harry, who lives near Detroit. His daughter, age 26, now lives in New York. "This generation has no qualms about sharing a bedroom before marriage. I accept the right of young women to make that decision, but I don't see that they are much happier. And it's very difficult for me. I have a lot of personal feelings on it."

"Young people living together before marriage doesn't disturb me at all," says Mary K. Ellis, 60, a Detroit housewife, mother of two, grandmother of five. "In fact, I think it's sometimes a good idea. I feel people have a right to do what they want in their own private quarters. But I don't like to see sex being peddled on the streets. We had mothers in the neighborhood being accosted simply because they happened to be women." Mrs. Ellis organized her neighbors and picketed prostitutes and a motel they frequented. Result: a police raid, 19 arrests.

"Intellectually, I think it's fine to sleep around," says Linda Gams, 25, a teacher who lived with her husband Bob for a year before marrying him two years ago. "But emotionally I'd be very, very upset if Bob slept with another woman. I wish I could be more liberated about this. I always felt I had conquered this until I started living with Bob and got dependent on him. It's a definite split in me."

"A lot of people accept intellectually that their spouse will probably have an extramarital affair," says Joan, who was married to a Chicago psychologist who often advocated "open marriage." She took him at his word and had an affair. When he found out, it broke up the marriage. Says Joan: "It's easy to be glib about it when it's not happening to you."

One theme emerges through all such comments: the existence of a residual respect for the much-maligned institutions of marriage and family, and the personal commitment implied in those institutions. Adultery is often frowned on as a betrayal, and an illegitimate birth is regarded as an act of irresponsibility.

After declining 10% between 1972 and 1976, the rate of marriages is now rising (the 279,000 June brides this year made up the largest such group since 1969). Though the divorce rate is still climbing, so is the rate of remarriages. The number of people marrying for a second time has roughly tripled since 1960. And the people who have taken to living together (some 1.3 million, up 100% since 1970, but the Census Bureau does not make any effort to ascertain whether such cohabitation involves sexual relations or not) are inclined to talk about their loyalty to each other in much the same tones that newlyweds once used. Indeed, to the extent that cohabitation is now widely accepted as a fact of life, it is a modern version of the old view that sex among the young was tacitly permissible if they were planning to get married or at least were in love. It was sex between strangers, sex for the sport of it, sex for money that always aroused the strongest opposition--and still does.

Says Sol Gordon, director of the Institute for Family Research and Education at Syracuse University: "There's a highly moral trend among college students, influenced by the women's liberation movement. One of young people's primary interests is love--falling in love and getting married. That's a new phenomenon. For the first time in history, more people may be getting married just for love than for other reasons." Donald Johnson, psychologist at the University of Colorado, sees a similar trend. Says he: "The promiscuity concept is dying out like crazy. People are talking about fidelity. It's a revolution against loneliness."

"Why shouldn't we be together--we're very much in love!" says Pamela Hudak, 21, a Boston secretary who has lived for more than a year with Herb Witten, 27. "We're faithful to each other. We never cheat. But I really don't want to get married right now. I want to wait and see where my career goes."

To find what Americans today really think about the very basic but infinitely complex questions of sexual morality, TIME commissioned the firm of Yankelovich, Skelly & White, which regularly conducts TIME's polls of voters' political, social and economic views, to undertake a special survey. Yankelovich interviewers questioned 1,044 registered voters, a group representative of various regions, races, ages and religious groups in proportion to the nationwide figures for those same groups. Thus 14% came From the Pacific Coast states, 10% were between 21 and 24 years old, 34% had only a high school education, 29% were Roman Catholic, 72% were married.

What percent ever tell the whole truth when questioned about various aspects of sex is harder to determine. In any case, the poll did not ask people about their sexual practices, only about what they thought.

One thing most Americans are ready to confess is that while they are talking more openly about sex, they are increasingly confused about the moral values involved. Fully 68% agreed with the statement that "it's a lot better to have more openness about things like sex, homosexuality, premarital and extramarital relations." But 61% felt that "it's getting harder and harder to know what's right and what's wrong these days." Of these people, whom the Yankelovich survey categorized as "morally confused," the highest incidence occurred among those over 50 (65%) and, surprisingly, among those under 25 (66%).

The pollsters asked people to make judgments on a series of actions, deciding whether such actions were morally wrong or not a moral issue. On most issues the answers were stern ones.

Is it morally wrong for a married man to be unfaithful to his wife? Yes, said a solid 76%. Is it morally wrong for a married woman to be unfaithful to her husband? Seventy-nine percent condemned it. (Women are generally more conservative than men on these issues, perhaps be cause, as one woman observed, "they usually have to pay the consequences." They are even as quick to apply the double standard--i.e., like men, women condemned female adultery more than male adultery.) The worst sin of all is when couples exchange partners: 81% of everyone questioned condemned it.

Is it morally wrong for teen-agers to have sex relations? Yes, said 63%. Those under age 25 disagreed, by a vote of 60% to 34%, but they were shouted down, as in real life, by their parents. The condemnation rose to a figure of 72% among those aged 35 to 49, and to 80% among those over 50.

Parents apparently suffer few illusions, however, about how much effect their frowning will have. About three-quarters approve of classroom discussions of sex relations even before high school, and more than three-quarters think parents are doing "the right thing" in instructing their own teen-age children about the use of contraceptives. Still, they keep hoping. When asked at what age it is "permissible" for a single young man to start having sex, 34% said he should wait until marriage, and 26% were not sure. Forty-two percent thought young women should wait until marriage, and 24% were not sure. (A 1976 survey of actual practice indicated that 55% of unmarried women had had intercourse by age 19. For men of that age, the estimates run to at least 85%)

Is it morally wrong for couples who are not married to live together? No, said 52%. This is the only category of "liberated" sexual behavior asked about in the poll that was accepted by a majority--however thin--and that is because of large approval among men and the young. For 51% of women, living together is still considered morally wrong, as it is among 52% of those between 35 and 49. And the acceptance of cohabitation does not necessarily lead to the acceptance of illegitimate children. Seventy percent of all those polled disapproved of having children without formal marriage.

Putting aside the word moral, the interviewers then listed a number of practices and asked whether they had become acceptable at least for other people, even if not for yourself." Once again, a majority found many things unacceptable: nude bathing beaches (61%), massage parlors (60%), male nudity in movies (59%) female nudity in movies (54%), topless waitresses in nightclubs (51%).

On each of the Yankelovich questions there are wide divisions between groups. Just as men tend to be more liberal or permissive than women, Catholics are more liberal than Protestants. The Northeast and the West are the most liberal areas, the South the least so. The young as always, are far more easygoing than the old, and the college-educated more than those without a college education. On the question of whether it is morally wrong for a man to spend an evening with a prostitute, for example, the rate of disapproval varies from 55% in the West to 69% in the South, from 54% among men to 69% among women, from 51% of those under 25 to 74% of those over 50, from 51% of college graduates to 65% of those who did not attend college.

In a number of cases, public controversy over an issue seems to have made people more evenly divided. Twenty-five years ago, homosexuality was rarely discussed and almost nobody willingly admitted to it. Today, in the era of gay rights marches, the Yankelovich survey asked whether sex between consenting homosexuals is morally wrong. Forty-seven percent said yes, but 43% said no and 10% were not sure, a higher rate of uncertainty than on any other subject.

Though a plurality said they considered homosexuality immoral, 56% said they ould vote fo legislation guaranteeing the civil rights of homosexuals. This was the issue fought out to bitterly in Miami last spring between Singer Anita Bryant and the homosexual activists. But although a majority of the Yankelovich poll subjects seem to side with the civil rights forces (who were defeated by a 2-to-1 majority in Miami) they do not all consider those rights unlimited. From 59% to 70% favor the right of homosexuals to live wherever they want, run for elective office, or serve in the Army, but that majority fades away when it comes to the right of homosexuals to act as teachers (44% for, 48% opposed) or ministers (44% for, 47% opposed).

The controversies over abortion which newspapers once used to refer to as "an illegal operation," have had a similar effect. When the Yankelovich interviewers asked whether it was "morally wrong" to have an abortion, 48% said it was not while 44% said it was. This pro-abortion majority comes from men who accept it by a ratio of 52 to 41, while women still oppose it, 47 to 44. A far larger majority (64%, including 58% of all Catholics) believe that regardless of morality a woman should be legally free to have an abortion if she wants one. But a majority (58%) also agree with President Carter's view that Government funds should not be used to finance elective abortions for the poor.

Not only do most Americans now oppose laws against abortion or homosexuals, the Yankelovich poll shows but they are against all Government prohibitions on sexual behavior.

In general, 70% subscribed to the statement that "there should be no laws either federal or state, regulating sexual practice." That majority included all categories, Catholic and Protestant alike old as well as young. Later in the survey when asked whether they favored eliminating maintaining "laws which regulate what kinds of sexual practices are acceptable and legal," a solid 49%-to-42% plurality wanted them eliminated.

The one apparent exception is pornography. Though adult entertainment areas have spread from Times Square and Hollywood Boulevard to even small towns across the nation, people dislike them. Fully 64% said that pornographic movies are morally wrong, and 59% said the same for advertisements promoting X-rated films. No less than 74% supported the view that "the Government should crack down more on pornography in movies, books and nightclubs." Of these 54% said they felt this strongly. When a similar question was asked in 1974, only 42% favored a Government crackdown.

In general, it is clear that the traditional moral system has widespread support. But whether this is a yearning for more conservative moral times or simply the persistence of attitudes that were widely thought to have faded is less apparent. The Yankelovich survey asked people whether their own views about morality had become more liberal or more conservative in the past few years. In response, 42% said there had been no change, 41% said they had become more liberal and 15% said they had become more conservative. It is difficult to measure such changes exactly, but even after ie process of liberalization, the majority seems to remain quite conservative. For example, 76% of the Yankelovich respondents supported the view that "permissiveness has led to a lot of things that are wrong with the country these days."

Surveys of sexual manners and mores are contradictory and tend to reflect the views of the pollsters. Perhaps the most significant such survey, however, is one taken in 1970 by the Kinsey Institute (officially the Institute for Sex Research), which is being used as the basis of a book entitled American Sexual Standards, to be published next year. Like the Yankelovich survey, the Kinsey study of 3,000 people showed a substantial majority (72% to 87%) disapproving of adultery, homosexuality, prostitution and casual sex among adolescents. "What really surprised us," Colin J. Williams, coauthor of the study, told TIME, "was that there existed such a hard-core bunch of conservatives in the country." In numerous places in the study, there are 20% to 40% that term "everything absolutely wrong. We call this moral absolutism, and there's a tremendous amount of it. What change there has been has occurred mainly in white, middle-class urban areas which are the areas that the media are constantly examining. But they do not reflect the country at large."

Although nobody expects America to return to the days of the hoop skirt, a number of experts do see signs that the wildest expressions of sexual "liberation" may be ending. "I think there's a shift back not toward conservatism but toward an end of sexuality for sexuality's sake," says Jack S. Boozer, professor of religion at Emory University in Atlanta. "What you had in the '60s was like being thrown into a forest and told there was no infallible reference point, everything was equal. The person in that forest is just as culturally deprived as the victim of malnutrition or child abuse."

Psychologist Joyce Brothers agrees. "We're not as swinging a people as we think we are," she says. "People found that instant sex was about as satisfying as a sneeze. It takes a lot of time and trouble to have sex with a lot of people, and they found it wasn't even worth the scheduling."

Barbara Seaman, author of Free and Female, goes further: "The backlash is against casual sex because a lot of people were hurt. It was as if there was a train gradually carrying us away from Victorian morality, but then suddenly in the '60s and '70s the train became a runaway, and a lot of passengers were injured. Now the brakes are starting to be repaired."

Most people today are in a state of "betweenity,' " says Marquette University Sociologist Wayne Youngquist. "They are caught between the new morality and the old. As long as they're not asked to make a statement, they'll ignore what's been going on. But they don't want to legitimate it." Youngquist also feels that while people are freer about private morality, they are becoming more conservative about the public and commercial exploitation of sex. Says he: "It's not that we have no rules, we have new rules. Kiddie porn is not free speech, it's exploitation. When you can't move down the streets because of prostitutes, it looks like hell. Do your own thing, but don't violate my space. A society that can't draw the line opens the way for normative collapse."

Columbia University Sociologist Amitai Etzioni agrees that the weakening of traditional standards could have dangers. Says he: "No political society has ever survived without its nuclear family intact. We can't go on becoming more and more liberal. We can't go on becoming ever more tolerant and pulling the nuclear family apart."

It is hard to determine exactly how a society acquires or changes such attitudes about itself. The processes of legislature and law move slowly. One unmistakable new element on the scene, however, is President Jimmy Carter, whom 53% of the Yankelovich respondents regarded as providing "strong moral leadership" (13% found him "too righteous"). Carter's influence may take some personal twists, like urging Government employees "who are living in sin" to get married (four of his top aides have done so since his election). On the other hand, the President's personal views can have major political significance, as in his opposition to Government funding for elective abortions a view that has been widely denounced but is supported by a majority in the Yankelovich survey.

"Carter is not the final answer, but at least he gives us a glimpse of a direction," says Dean Francis B. Sayre Jr. of the Washington Cathedral (Episcopal) "In him we have a President of balance and of conscience, and that has an immediate effect." Peter Bourne, a psychiatrist who acts as White House special assistant for health issues, describes it as "a ripple effect." Says he: "When Carter talks about the positive aspects of marriage about developing welfare programs that reinforce the family . . . it makes people look at marriage differently." Sociologist Etziom agrees: "We don't have a king or a queen to invest our identity with, so the President's position on these issues is of enormous importance. It will be the largest single force in American society."

In 1960, when John Kennedy was trying to become the first Catholic to win the presidency, many Protestants feared he might be dominated by the church's hierarchy, which had long fought against liberalized divorce laws, against artificial birth control and for censorship of books and movies. Kennedy defused that issue by confronting a group of Texas ministers and convincing them that secular principles would govern his decisions. Since then, of course, many Catholics have adopted far more permissive views. A report last June, commissioned by the Catholic Theological Society, said that just about any form of sex, including both homosexuality and adultery, could be considered acceptable, so long as it is "self-liberating, other-enriching, honest, faithful, socially responsible, life-serving and joyous."

But now a Southern Baptist is in the White House, and it is evangelical Protestants who provide the most militant force for traditional morality. Anita Bryant, for one, frequently cites Scripture to support her antihomosexual campaign. Says her minister, the Rev. William Chapman of Miami's Northwest Baptist Church, with a rich gumbo of metaphors, "We're getting to the scum line in American society. People's lives are coming apart at the seams. People have burnt themselves out chewing on the cob of the liberal. We've listened to the liberal for 15 years, and what has he produced? A life that is full of the barnyard morality. The liberal dream is nothing but a hog trough."

Among more intellectual moralists, such rhetoric is hardly taken seriously. Lewis Smedes, who teaches theology and ethics at the Fuller Theological Seminary in California, is an evangelical who takes a more reasoned but nonetheless critical view of the trend of recent years. Says he: "The new morality is based on personhood and that could open the door to mass egotism. Our moral standards today are less impressed with the morality of the law or our institutions and more impressed with the value of the person. Even religious people are no longer impressed with marriage as an institution. If the union does not contribute to a person's growth, as that person perceives it, then he or she withdraws."

The opposition to hedonism is not limited to conservatives. The Rev. Jesse Jackson, Chicago black-activist leader, says he used to think that sexual morality was a private affair, but then he began to wonder why he saw so few young people engaged in social action. "Were they marching for full employment?" he asks. "Were they marching to rebuild cities? No, the thrust was to lower the drinking age to 18, to legalize marijuana, to engage in sex and accept no responsibility for the baby. [But] one has to have an ethical base for a society. Where the prime force is impulse, there is the death of ethics. America used to have ethical laws based in Jerusalem. Now they are based in Sodom and Gomorrah, and civilizations rooted in Sodom and Gomorrah are destined to collapse."

Jackson is exaggerating, to be sure. Even those experts who criticize the Jacobin era of the sexual revolution generally believe some good things have come to pass--greater frankness, greater tolerance, greater willingness to experiment. Many also point out that the time has come to stop equating morality with sexual morality, to separate it from cheating, betrayal and cruelty. Still, at a time when sex is being widely commercialized, when people's emotional needs are often manipulated and exploited, it is interesting simply to record that a substantial majority of Americans cling to a belief in many of the values of family life that they learned in their own homes.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.