Some on the interwebs are recently claiming that a "sexual counterrevolution" is afoot, one that is ostensibly led by Women on both sides of the Atlantic (USA and UK) who are fed up with the sexual revolution as it were. From Mary Harrington (who apparently coined the term, as well as the term "reactionary feminism" with which she herself identifies) to Louise Perry to Christine Emba to Katherine Dee to Evie Magazine to a few others, including some men as well, there does appear to be a trend back towards sex-negativity, or at least against the perceived excesses of sexual liberation.
The sexual revolution, like the industrial revolution, was a mixed bag overall. Contrary to what some believe, it was neither an unalloyed good nor an unmitigated evil. But overall, it was on balance a good thing I think. Yes, even for Women too. If anything, it is still unfinished to this day. It is not a simple case of "men won and Women lost", just like the industrial revolution was not merely a simple case of "bourgeoisie (capitalist class) won and proletariat (working class) lost". Sexual liberation does NOT need to be a zero-sum game at all. Only the male-defined sexuality of patriarchy is truly a zero-sum game, which has existed long before the sexual revolution. Female-defined sexuality is not.
As for the idea that there should be some sort of counterrevolution, as author Louise Perry advocates in The Case Against The Sexual Revolution, well, some good rebuttals from many different angles can be found here, here, and here. Even Christine Emba's new book, Rethinking Sex: A Provocation (the thesis of which is neither new nor particularly provocative) can be criticized here, here, and here as well. These rebuttals for both, all written by Women, are far, far better than anything I could ever write. And while these two authors occasionally make some decent points here and there, they are both quite heavy on problems and light on solutions. Emba's solutions are far too vague and anodyne, while Perry's are far too retro (if not extremely non-starters as well), to even be considered solutions.
But truly the only real solution is the one that these authors don't seem to consider: MATRIARCHY. It's like they are afraid to even utter the word, or something. Not surprising, of course, given how utterly infantilizing and agency-denying some of their arguments are to Women in general.
It is true what they say that mere consent should be the floor, not the ceiling, of sexual ethics. No argument from me there. Even most sex-positive feminists would agree as well. What Emba in particular calls "radical empathy" is also crucial, as well as respect, honesty, and basic human decency/dignity, of course. But beyond that, their arguments really start to coast into confusion if not utter incoherence overall. And the relatively short shrift they give to non-heterosexual folks (both Women and men), who they barely even acknowledge at all, also does the reader a serious disservice as well.
But back to Mary Harrington. Her brand of "reactionary feminism" takes it a step further and apparently wants to roll back not only the sexual revolution, but also the industrial revolution as well, and possibly even the Enlightenment too. The 1950s is apparently not traditional enough for her, as she quite literally seems to prefer....the 1450s. (Riddle me this: If that time period was so great, then why all the peasant revolts, in which revolutionary Women, eventually persecuted as "witches", played an outsized role?) She is really quite the anti-modernist, it seems, and the title of her upcoming book, Feminism Against Progress, kinda says it all. She comes dangerously close to sounding just like the Neoreactionary movement at times. Oh, and she also denies that patriarchy ever even existed either. Thus, her vague "solutions" would essentially preclude the only real solution of Matriarchy as well. And yet she calls herself a feminist, go figure!
(To be fair, Harrington is not the first person to ever criticize the notion of "progress" either. Christopher Ryan, co-author of Sex at Dawn, also wrote a sort-of sequel, Civilized to Death: The Price of Progress, in which he also criticizes the unquestioned notion of progress, albeit from a different and clearly sex-positive angle, and with VERY different solutions compared to the reactionaries. I triple-dog dare Harrington to debate him, lol. But much like Lynn Saxon, author of an unconvincing rebuttal titled Sex at Dusk, she would probably just resort to cad-shaming and other ad hominem attacks.)
Oh, and finally, one of her most ridiculous articles ever is literally titled, "Middle Aged Women Don't Want Sex", and presumably that applies to Crones as well. Somehow that sounds a bit like projection perhaps? And besides, the legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder has clearly and famously debunked this utterly specious notion to be not only inaccurate, but almost a full 180 degrees wrong as well.
Thus, so-called reactionary feminism occupies that awkward space between where extreme sex-negative radical feminism and extreme sex-negative anti-feminism meet per Horseshoe Theory. Much like how the far left and far right become dangerously close to each other as well. It is essentially the worst of both extreme worlds, and its pied pipers should really be avoided like the plague and not discussed further. Except insofar as sunlight is the best disinfectant, of course.
UPDATE: Oh, and about those revolutionary Women of the 15th century, eventually persecuted as "witches", did you know that many of them believed in and practiced communal living and even (gasp) free love? You know, the same things that are absolutely anathema to those self-proclaimed "reactionary feminists" discussed above? According to the actual feminist Sylvia Federici, they apparently did. So far from being the granddaughters of the "witches" they couldn't burn, today's reactionaries are more like the granddaughters, or at least ideological descendants, of the sellout Women who collaborated with the witch-hunters and threw their sisters under the bus. That is true not just for these reactionaries, but also for all slut-shamers, SWERFs, forced-birthers, victim-blamers, and rape apologists as well--all of which being just a very short walk away from one another.
In fact, I decided to name this new-but-not-really-new virulent strain of reactionary pseudo-feminism "Serena Joy Syndrome", after the rather infamous character from Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. It fits perfectly.
UPDATE 2: New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg has a good response (if anodyne) to the sexual counterrevolutionaries. Even if it is still not well-received by some of the counterrevolutionaries and reactionaries themselves, of course.