Your respectful disagreement is noted!
However, it looks like we’re going to have to continue to “agree to disagree”. Your lived experiences are obviously very different from mine, and hence I don’t think we’re ever probably ever going to change each other’s minds. Perhaps it’s all about “time and place”, because the previous world that you are trying to present from a factual perspective is not the world that I experienced…”facts” or not.
Yes, attendance and affiliation to mainline religious denominations has been declining—precipitously—since the 1980s. At the same time, however, attendance and membership at non-aligned Evangelical churches has grown in an equally strong fashion. In fact, in many parts of the country, this growth has more than netted-out the decline at the mainline churches. Additionally, these churches are far more socially activist than any of the mainline churches were in the years past. I would venture to say that, contrary to your statement, in many places we have become more “religious” as a nation…and in many cases, more virulent.
And, it is this social/cultural activism of many (not all) of these Evangelical churches has certainly had an impact on the “social compact” in this country. Previously—and perhaps hypocritically—most mainline churches didn’t get very involved in social issues. Occasionally, there would be a blast from a local pulpit about some cultural issue—teenage girls wearing “those new bikinis” was a big one back in the 1960s. But many of those same churches would not get involved even in Civil Rights, nor the War in Vietnam. Churchgoing was rather a silent affair…and mostly willing to tolerate and/or turn a blind eye to social issues. This was also very true of homosexuality. I attended Sunday services and homosexuality was never once denounced from the pulpit. Not once. Birth control, yes…abortion, yes. But for some reason—maybe because there were still state and federal laws against homosexuality to take it out of their hands—the churches didn’t seem to find homosexuality all that much of a flashpoint...at least not until it became wrapped into the whole sexual ethos of the late 70s/early 80s that had been the result of the Swinging Sixites.
The 1950s were blissfully and deliberately ignorant—perhaps hypocritically so—of many things. You mention Lucy and Desi sleeping in separate beds…and being unable to use the word pregnant. Yes, that was a laugh…but it wasn’t because of the religion of the time. Most married viewers did sleep in the same bed together…and further knew that Little Ricky wasn’t conceived by Immaculate Conception. And, “pregnant” was a word in complete public use—don’t forget, this was the Baby Boom, and pregnancy was a major topic of conversation in every “family” neighborhood. It wasn’t couched in innuendo. Instead, that whole set of nonsense was a leftover of Joseph Breen and the Hay’s Code of the 1930s, put into effect mostly as the result of the society’s revulsion to the Fatty Arbuckle case, and the unsolved murder of William Desmond Taylor, when Hollywood was starting to be looked at as the New Babylon. It was done by the movie moguls themselves to protect them—and their empires—from the possibility of government involvement in their industry.
Yet at the same time Lucy and Ricky were sleeping separately, the studios were trying to keep the homosexuality of Rock Hudson, Montgomery Clift, and Tab Hunter under wraps, for fear that that would lead to the loss of their “leading man” status. Not so oddly, all of Hollywood knew about it…and it was no big deal. Lucy even had Rock star in one of her “I Love Lucy” episodes, as himself, in the middle of all this. Then too, much of the country had already heard the rumors as well…and yet, it didn’t matter. Rock in particular was still a major draw at the box office. And, yes, there WERE gay characters in movies—they were just couched in innuendo (Peter Lorre in “The Maltese Falcon” is one that immediately comes to mind). However, they usually ended up unhappy or dead because of the requirements of the Hay’s Code of the 1930s. It wasn’t the religion of the 1950s driving this.
Additionally, at no time in my schooling was I ever requested or compelled to say prayers in school—and especially not under the leadership of a faculty member. I attended public schools and it was never part of my experience in my district, or in the neighboring ones. Obviously, it was an issue in some places, or the Supreme Court would not have gotten involved as it did in 1963/1964…but it was certainly not the norm where I grew up. The only time religion—Christianity, of course—raised its head was with the usual Christmas activities around the holidays. Otherwise, overt religious influences were not a part of campus life.
So now we come to the present you so roundly describe. Yes, indeed…much progress has been made. However, each step of this progress has been fought against—loudly, and sometimes distressingly violently—by Evangelical churches.
If you've been listening to certain media platforms for the past twenty years, particularly those tied to the various churches---and then listened to the sermons coming from many (not all) of the pulpits---you would understand that the underlying dogma of each of these groups finds each of the changes you've listed are horrific. They have decried the "wokeism" that allowed someone to be fired for using the term "fag". They constantly deride your now-visible actors, celebrities, and politicians who are openly gay and willing to present their opinions in the market of common thought. And it has become an almost constant diatribe at certain levels to go after trans teens. Then too, look at the several old mainline religious denominations that have fought violently---and then split---over the issue of homosexuality. It has become very, very visible in a way that it was not in the past. So, no…your position of “religious beliefs, puritanical standards, and homophobia” have NOT “decreased significantly”. That is an illusion.
Even the school campuses aren’t unaffected. These days in my community, there are active “prayer meetings” on campus after school; team “prayers” on the playing fields; and highly activist members of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes in both the locker rooms and in sports administrative positions. They are a “ministry”. And if you think that they are OK with homosexuality, you need to read their position papers.
As for gay athletes…yes, they’ve always been there, and far more than most people ever really imagined. But even today, while they are allowed to be “out” legally, most still refuse because of locker room issues. I’m sure you’ve read about some of the explosions in pro team locker rooms over even perceived homosexuality. It isn’t safe.
So now, very unlike the 1940s through the 1970s, society is being forced to deal with this back-and-forth fight over homosexuality…and the demonization of it. Conversely, it is making many people—men in particular—incredibly uncertain regarding their feelings about their own bodies, and who should see them, and what nakedness means. And, it’s particularly distressing for men who are active believers of a particular religion. The fact that there are so many threads in the Forums on this site—very similar in theme and tone to this one—should open your eyes to their confusion.
I’ve seen the changes in the locker rooms as a result—even in the more-liberal parts of this country.
And, no…I’m not going to ignore the issue of “privacy”, which is what drove the ACLU’s support of the student in the LA Times article you link to above. That is a red-herring, though, and a discussion on its own merits away from homosexuality…although there is often an element of fear and homophobia in “privacy” as well. I will agree, though, that the threats of those lawsuits is what drove many public schools and organizations to pretty much drop anything regarding required nudity from their activities, and expensively replace open group showers with individual stalls…or even totally remove physical activities as a requirement.
So, going back to the beginning of the thread...and the questions/comments originally posited. What changed? The guys in these photos look like they’re happy and carefree...and just having fun. Additionally, I'm sure that there were many a closeted gay guy (or maybe even not-so-closeted ones) among the many men pictured. I will tell you, quite frankly, that it isn't Privacy. If you really know most men (straight, gay, or bi), they really actually love to be naked with the guys---indoors, or especially outdoors. And, once again, this site---and the self-posted pics on it---puts paid to that theory. So, again, what changed?
I have seen it develop and grow...and it is Fear, mostly about being seen as being homosexual.
