More sex with contraception = more unplanned pregnancies
… [I]t boggles my mind to think that the logical answer to slowing the skyrocketing nonmarital fertility rate is to pump more (and free) birth control into the relationship system…. It’s a little like printing money to stimulate an economy: it sounds like a helpful thing, it could work, but it may backfire, and it’s hard to know with confidence what exactly will happen, and whatever happens may well generate unintended consequences, but it sounds noble because at least it’s doing something….
One can argue whether it’s moral or not to use the Pill, or whether it’s immoral to deny access to it, but the Pill inarguably contributed directly to the single-largest drop in the “price of sex,” that is, how much relationship commitment is necessary (on average) before women agree to sex with men….
But it makes sense: take the risk of getting pregnant out of the equation (or in actuality, reduce the risk) and sex obviously will seem more advantageous and attractive to many. And it has….
Add in the factors [of] contraceptive failure rates and usage errors — and multiply by amount of sex that is going on and voila: you have more unexpected pregnancies than you anticipated, as a Nobel-winning economist documented over 15 years ago. It’s because the overall amount of sex occurring is greater, and the barriers to it much fewer, while contraceptive usage errors remain stable.
~ Mark Regnerus, Black, White and Gray, February 20
[Photo via tbtam.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
This is easily predictable, but rarely thought about and apparently a bizarre mystery to our pro-choice friends. Humans are economic beings who play the odds; we all desire intimacy and the easier you make it to engage in it, the more we’ll do it on average. The more we have sex and the more likely we are to think generally risky sexual encounters are safer, the more pregnancies and STIs will result. If it were true that widespread access to contraception would result in less abortions, we would have never had Roe v. Wade in the first place. If the President’s bogus claim that 98% of women use contraception were true, shouldn’t the abortion rate be less than 2 in 100 pregnancies, not 25 or so? The solution of course is to stick to a healthy culture that promotes sexual fidelity and responsibility for the next generation. Get people to realize they and everyone stands to benefit from it. Big challenge though!
It seems to me that people who promote this “more contraception = fewer abortions” myth just take it on faith that all birth control is 100% effective and completely safe, so if we pro-life dummies would just agree to hand those pills out like candy (as though you can’t already get those pills easily/cheaply) then the poor sex-starved women out there can pursue a meaningful, enjoyable, sex-filled life and put off having babies until they are “ready.”
In reality, I know more than a few women who have been living such a lifestyle (pills, sex, avoid babies at all costs) since their early teens, and now as they approach 30 or 40 years old and want a baby are having trouble conceiving; many have failed marriages behind them or have never married. Surprise, surprise.
B-I-N-G-O.
I can see the correlation. However, I don’t see people who don’t agree with contraception putting forth any workable solutions for reducing the casual sex in our society. What do you propose we do, as a society and as parents?
I think if people are made to accept the consequences of casual sex (no abortion to fall back on etc), it will naturally decline (though of course never be eliminated). Either they will use contraceptives more carefully or change their behavior. Society doesn’t need to “do” anything. What society is “doing” now by pushing contraceptives is increasing the amount of casual sex and unintended pregnancies. So we really can’t “do” much worse.
Sorry – added comment too quickly. The rest of my point was that without abortion, those who want to push contraceptives as beneficial to the human experience will do that and those who oppose the morality of contraception will try to convince others that their view of the nature of human dignity is better. That’s how I see that unfolding b/c no one is talking about banning non-abortifacient contraceptives. So it will be up to parents to impart their views to their children about sexual morality.
Hmmm… I don’t know. I think tackling the huge, huge problem of sexual abuse in our society would be a good start. People, especially girls, who are sexually abused tend to act out in risky sexual behavior. Other than that, I would support full comprehensive sex ed, including honest conversations about the emotional as well as physical consequences of sex, including failure rates of contraceptives. I don’t think that society “pushes” contraceptives. I think it fails to look at sex as a serious thing
Jack, do you think sexual abuse has increased or decreased since the pill and legalized abortion?
I don’t disagree with that in theory (as long as the discussion of contraceptives is value neutral – as in they exist, this is how they operate, this is their failure rate). I’d have to see specifics of the discussion about emotional and physical consequences of sex, which could certainly be an area of contention.
As for society pushing contraception….Every insurer in the country now has to offer it, for free b/c it’s vital to “women’s health.” And yes, that is part of the larger issue of not looking at sex as a serious thing.
Prax, I am not sure. In the sexual abuse survivor groups that I am a part of there are about an equal amount of older people and younger people. It is hard to compare across generations, since it is such a stigmatized thing that people won’t talk about much. Regardless of whether rates have changed, something like one in three girls and one in six boys is abused, and working on this issue would almost definitely help the problem of so many people being involved in risky sexual behavior.
CT, I don’t think that the mandate is much proof of pushing contraceptives. I think it was a political move by Obama because contraceptives are so widely used, that he was hoping to score some points against the GOP. I think that tackling the reasons why so many people are messing around would be more effective than tackling bc. And it would be lovely if parents supportes and taught their children about healthy sexual behavior, but so many parents are failing their kids that if we want to improve the way our culture views sexuality, it can’t just be left up to parents.
This will not be popular:
Shame has to function again in society, both with regards to women AND men.
How will shame help, Courtnay? I have seen a lot of damage from sexual repression and shame.
I acted out sexually as a teen and was never abused, nor were most of my friends, I think that’s tangent from the topic. I acted out because abortion was available if there was an “accident” and that’s the truth. It didn’t matter that I was taught “healthy” sexuality.
You can teach healthy boundaries and behaviors without making people feel dirty and shameful about it.
I don’t think it is a tangent at all, Katharine. You acted out sexually because abortion was an option, I did (and many, many people I know) because of sexual abuse. Sure, abortion as an option is one factor. But ignoring other huge problems isn’t going to fix anything. I get tired of people blaming every societal ill on abortion, as if making it illegal will make the US some type of utopia. Banning abortion would be a good thing, but it isn’t going to help much in and of itself.
Maybe a better term is social stigma. We also can teach modesty to our young people. The sexualization of children, combined with the permissive attitudes and the idea that “it’s all good” has hurt us as a nation, especially as women.
Sex is amazing in the proper context. Some of us will disagree what that context is. But we all know the hook up culture is no good.
“You can teach healthy boundaries and behaviors without making people feel dirty and shameful about it.”
JackBorsch, I think one can teach shame as a healthy boundary without making people feel dirty. A healthy boundary, in my opinion, addresses the behavior rather than the individual, ie the behavior is foul, not the person.
The concept of shame can be a powerful motivator of future behavior — if I know that I will be ashamed of something, I won’t do it.
Well, I don’t think most reasonable people would disagree that the hookup culture is damaging, or that objectifying women is really prevalent and damaging. I think that some people, me included, would disagree that stigma is the way to go. If I stigmatize sex for my kids, why would they come to me for help if they get in a situation where they made some bad decisions? I don’t think shame is an effective tool for preventing behavior, it sure as heck is a tool for covering it up.
Eric, it depends I guess. Shame never stopped me from doing anything. I think that teaching healthy boundaries, self-respect and respect for others, and the risks of engaging in behavior, without stigmatizing or framing sex as something “dirty” or “shameful” would help.
Jack,my husband also spends a lot of one on one time with my teenage daughter, and he teaches her how to be treated like a lady. But she also knows that sex is for marriage, not because it’s nasty, but because her life will work out better that way. Most importantly, that is how God planned it to go.
When she is old enough, and she asks, we can talk of my experiences with the 80s and the hook up culture.
PS–I was not ashamed of my promiscuity as it was happening. I just thought it reaffirmed my worth as a woman. I am ashamed of it now, though forgiven, and blessed with a mighty, mighty good man.
Jack, I agree — sex itself should never be presented as “dirty”. Without any concept of shame for the hook-up culture, though, young people will not avoid it. And Courtnay, as you say about your husband and daughter, I work with my daughter to understand she is precious and to wait for marriage for sex, not because sex is nasty but because waiting will yield far superior results for her entire life.
I loved being rebellious! But that was because, while my parents tried to discipline me, they never sought to establish a real realtionship with me. So the discipline didn’t mean much.
I needed my parents to tow the line. They failed me. I will not do the same for my kids. I care enough about how thier relationships turn out AS A FUNCTION OF THEIR SEXUAL PURITY far too much. And there is a connection, I have no doubt.
“I think that tackling the reasons why so many people are messing around would be more effective than tackling bc.”
And I think those are not mutually exclusive issues.
“And it would be lovely if parents supportes and taught their children about healthy sexual behavior, but so many parents are failing their kids that if we want to improve the way our culture views sexuality, it can’t just be left up to parents.”
And then here we find ourselves again at an impasse. B/c someone’s view of what constitutes a healthy view of sexuality is going to have to carry the day, and the rights of parents who are NOT failing their children will be trampled on if they are on the losing side of that.
Those parents can excuse their children from sex ed and then teach them what they believe about bc and sex, then, CT.
I get what you are saying, Courtnay and Eric. I just don’t like to hear the terms shame and stigma in regards to sex. I think that’s damaging. But au understand more fully what you are trying to say.
Hi Jack,
Courtnay and I have very similar backgrounds. We didn’t know then what we know now and our children will get the benefit of that wisdom.
My eldest has a purity ring which he picked out himself. All of his life has been a conversation about God’s BEST PLAN for sex. Saving himself is what he knows will spare him pain, STD’s, an unplanned pregnancy or death!! We pray for his future wife as well. That God help her to wait.
He gets teased like you wouldn’t believe at school for that ring and still he wears it. Still he commits to what God wants for him. Easy? No. But I want to spare all of my children the pain I have endured as a promiscuous teen looking for love.
“Those parents can excuse their children from sex ed and then teach them what they believe about bc and sex, then, CT”
And you will still have a fight on your hands, b/c then the direction of society is chosen and everyone else is cast as “other.”
And in light of your answers, I’d like to go back to your original assertion that “However, I don’t see people who don’t agree with contraception putting forth any workable solutions for reducing the casual sex in our society.”
Those opposed to contraception absolutely put forward the same sort of suggestions you have put forth – to teach people about the nature of sexual behavior and it’s proper context. I don’t see how such suggestions are less “workable” than what you have put forth, unless you are saying that only efforts that push contraception as a fallback count as “workable”. Can you clarify.
Carla, I am glad that your son has the support and love he needs to make good decisions. I think you and your husband are great parents who will teach and help him to have healthy relationships in life. I was just worried with Courtnay talking about “shame”. I don’t think that people should be taught to be ashamed of sex, I think that’s really unhealthy.
“And you will still have a fight on your hands, b/c then the direction of society is chosen and everyone else is cast as “other.” ”
Really? If there is a value neutral sex ed class about the emotional and physical risks of sex, including contraceptives, you are “othering” parents who choose to remove their children from this curriculum? I know some people on this board would like children to be taught about abortion at a way younger age than I am comfortable with for my children. If this were a curriculum at their schools, and I chose to excuse them from this class, would I be “othered” or simply exercising my right as a parent to make that decision for my child, without keeping the information away from other people’s children?
“Those opposed to contraception absolutely put forward the same sort of suggestions you have put forth – to teach people about the nature of sexual behavior and it’s proper context. I don’t see how such suggestions are less “workable” than what you have put forth, unless you are saying that only efforts that push contraception as a fallback count as “workable”. Can you clarify.”
The problem is that I have seen with the solutions put forth by the anti-contraception crowd is that they seem to assume that everyone has loving parents who will teach their children the “proper” context of sex. Or that they will have the same issue with birth control that people who have a moral issue with it do. Also, they seem to have a lot of focus on religion in regards to sex, which is simply not going to be applicable to everyone.The only workable compromise I can see is to have a comprehensive education program for these kids who don’t have anyone else to learn it from. The program wouldn’t have to say anything like “the Pill rocks!” or anything ridiculous like that. It could be something like “This is something people use to try to prevent pregnancy. These are some serious side effects that may occur, and these are the failure rates.” Same thing with the emotional side effects, presented in a factual, value neutral way, possibly even encouraging the kids to talk to the school counselor or another trusted adult if they feel like they can’t talk to their parents. Those who don’t want their children to hear these things should be able to excuse them from it. Can you think of a better way to reach kids that are otherwise just going to get this info from their misinformed buddies or the internet?
I am SO glad my teen years are past! I felt surrounded and pressured to “give in” to the sexual culture even then, but the changes in the past decade or so have been incredible!
My own high school sex-ed class was, I think, a perfect example of how kids should be taught–we reviewed basic biology, how a pregnancy occurs, discussed birth control methods (including abstinence) and made a chart to compare how each worked and failure rates, learned about STDs, and cared for one of those robotic babies for a week. No special emphasis was placed on any choice or method, but when I thought about the risks of illness or pregnancy and realized ONLY abstinence was 100% effective for preventing both, well my choice was clear!
I waited for my husband (we married almost a year ago, when I was 32!) and I am glad every day that I did! We are now awaiting the birth of our daughter in about a month (she was not planned so early in our marriage, but so what? We’re both delighted to have her!) and we agree that she will be taught to value herself and save that one-time-only gift for her own future husband!
If there is a value neutral sex ed class about the emotional and physical risks of sex, including contraceptives, you are “othering” parents who choose to remove their children from this curriculum?
“Values neutral sex ed?” How many people on these boards alone believe that ANY sort of suggested “boundaries” when it comes to sex are archaic and a result of religiosity? If you tell kids to wait “until they’re ready” or in a “monogamous, committed relationship,” how is this not imposing some sort of a value system? Waiting until “ready” would suggest that monogamy is not necessarily part of the equation, and that will offend some people’s values of waiting until marriage/committed relationships. Suggesting monogamy might cause certain segments of society to think that the “morality police” are imposing their values by saying sleeping with as many people as you want, however and wherever you want, may not be the best idea.
There is no such thing as values-free sex ed, IMO.
“There is no such thing as values-free sex ed, IMO.”
Well, it would be tough to do for sure. Maybe covering the different types of relationship decisions, and the benefits and drawbacks of each? Like, covering abstinence before marriage as the only sure way to avoid pregnancy and STDs before marriage, explaining that promiscuity in teens is correlated with higher rates of depression and drug/alcohol abuse, and higher rates of unplanned pregnancy and STDs. Etc, etc, etc.
Jack, I think I understand what you want and your reasons for wanting it are laudable, but I don’t think what you want is possible in reality. I’ll sort of side with you in that I think factual, biological sex ed is important (w/ opt outs). But I’m going to have to echo the others who question whether you can have that be “value-free” particularly if you are going to be discussing the emotional ramifications of sex or the use of contraceptives and other things you include under “comprehensive”. To present facts in a neutral way, without mention that the neutrality of these facts is controversial (ie – condoms are not just something some people use, no big deal, to everyone) is to choose a side. To cast those who “have a lot of focus on religion in regards to sex” as other. To relegate the moral component of sexual behavior to something outside of comprehensive understanding of sexuality. It’s not neutral.
“I know some people on this board would like children to be taught about abortion at a way younger age than I am comfortable with for my children. If this were a curriculum at their schools, and I chose to excuse them from this class, would I be “othered” or simply exercising my right as a parent to make that decision for my child, without keeping the information away from other people’s children?”
Well, I think it’s different b/c your disagreement as described is one of timing and not content, but assume that there was a push to have “comprehensive sex ed” that presented abortion in a neutral factual light. Just, “abortion is a legal medical procedure some people make use of, these are the risks (insert the fight over THIS point), these are the emotional ramifications (Insert big fight number 2).” And this was being presented as the standard for society – what we want to teach children who have no other guidance, what we want to impart to all children unless their parents forcibly remove them. Yes. Those who say, “that’s not neutral,” “you can’t remove the moral component from this” are cast as other. They must opt out of the standard. Society has chosen its direction at that point and abortion is part of the pie.
That’s why removing your children is only part of the fight. If you don’t engage on these issues, you do nothing to help those who, as you say, have no guidance, in a way that you feel is beneficial.
So, I’ll say again, those opposed to contraceptives would probably like to engage these children in the same way you do, but we would just say different things and we don’t pretend that our position is one of neutrality.
“The program wouldn’t have to say anything like “the Pill rocks!” or anything ridiculous like that.”
I should hope not since the pill is abortifacient and thus would not belong in an abortion-removed discussion of true contraceptives in the first place.
Why can’t we just teach biology and leave the advertisement of products to the market place like other products. Planned Parenthood and their ilk have been pushing their products on us and our children in our schools and colleges, and it has nothing to do with biology at all.
Kids will understand basic biology, how human babies are made, how plants and animals reproduce. Putting the act of sex in it’s proper biological setting is what we need, like we did in the past before PP’s multi-generational marketing blitz.
Remember Joe Camel and the outrage over a cartoonish cigarette advertisement? Letting PP in our schools is like having Joe Camel lecture and demonstrate “safe smoking.”
JackBorsch: Check out Jill’s Feb. 13, 2012 – “Shocking video shows Planned Parenthood’s graphic sex ed materials for kids
American Life League is kicking off National Condom Week with a graphic video showing how Planned Parenthood hooks kids on sex through its sexual education programs. …”.
PP thinks that their sex ed IS the best and probably ‘value neutral’ too.
I spent 10 years on a school board’s Advisory Health Committee trying to get them to talk to the students about washing their hands with regard to feeling someone up and sex even with a condom. Did not bring up abortion, etc. Gave them sites as sources for STD’s that can end up in the eyes and autoinoculation. Even gave a talk to the school board where one member was an eye doctor. Thanked me for my service and passed right over the hand washing. So much for “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”.
No respect for health, the other person, morals, etc. That is the shame of it all. As another person on this site says, “The … sex … must … continue”.
I think tackling the huge, huge problem of sexual abuse in our society would be a good start.
I would hope that we would look for ways to reduce sexual abuse anyway. Any considerations about other issues aside, however related they may be.
However, I think you made a great point when you said that society’s view of sex (unimportant, not a big deal) may be a contributing factor in the minds of abusers (“This is not important, therefore I’m not really hurting this person.”). At least, you seemed to have connected the two. I hope I didn’t misunderstand you. I had never considered that as a potential causal factor, and I haven’t seen any research about potential links, unfortunately. But this is a very logical suggestion and a thoughtful one.
Definitely Alice, I see that as part of theproblem. A lot of abusive and predatory people minimize the impact of sexual behavior, believe “no” means “ask again”, and a whole lot of other behaviors that I can see reflected in our culture in general. And if we are raising generations of people who are told sex is no big deal, and we have sitcoms that make a joke out of sexual harassment, rape jokes all over the place… I don’t think we can be surprised about sexual abuse, rape, and just general high risk behavior being prevalent. All that leads to a lot of bad things, up to and including more abortions. Of course, I think sexual repression and stigmatization also causes a lot of the same damage in different ways. That’s how the church I was raised in was, and sexual abuse was a huge problem. Because sex was “dirty” and “bad”, it was n’t talked about. People were shamed and it screwed up a lot of people. There has to be a balance between treating sex like it is no different from brushing your teeth and treating it like it’s some dirty thing not to be talked about. Of course, this is just observation and opinion from me, with my personal experiences of being abused and talking to a lot of abuse victims.
“And this was being presented as the standard for society – what we want to teach children who have no other guidance, what we want to impart to all children unless their parents forcibly remove them. Yes. Those who say, “that’s not neutral,” “you can’t remove the moral component from this” are cast as other. They must opt out of the standard. Society has chosen its direction at that point and abortion is part of the pie.”
CT, well, we can’t be on either extreme, we have to be somewhere in the middle. In the public school system, I can’t agree with either telling children “Go for it! Sex is just a natural physical thing, no biggie!” OR “God made you for one person only.” Would you be cool with “othering” parents that would object to the second framing? There are things we can actually empirically show, like that the CDC classifies people with more than a couple sexual partners as “high risk”. Or we can show that depression rates skyrocket the younger someone is when they begin having sex. We can show that married couples are generally happier with their lives in general, their sex lives in particular, and usually have better physical health. We can show the correlation between cohabitation and much higher divorce rates. We can talk about self-respect and the importance of saying no and leaving a situation when you feel unsafe or pressured. We can talk about what “consent” really means. What I am saying is, there are empirical things that can be taught that don’t require a moral component. And even if some people feel “othered” and want to exempt their kids, that is really no excuse for failing the kids that aren’t going to get healthy information from anyone else. I talk to kids who weren’t taught these things every day at the shelter I volunteer at. I have talked to girls who had NO IDEA that they didn’t *have* to have sex with their boyfriend. I have talked to boys who think that there is something wrong with them if they don’t feel comfortable sleeping with several different people. There has to be some way to help out these kids.
In regards to contraceptives… Do some people use them to try and prevent pregnancy? That is a fact. Are there harmful physical side effects, to hormonal contraceptives at least? Yes. Is the practical failure rate much higher than the “ideal” failure rate that the company claims? Heck yes. Nothing there is *not* factual. Would you agree to the factual presentation if there was a disclaimer, such as “Some religious groups feel that contraceptives damage the procreative purpose of sex, and damage the unity between a couple.” Something like that?
And plus, we need to get PP out of the classroom. Their stuff is predatory and harmful, I have already see what you linked, Patty.
The sex-ed discussion reminds me of a friend who teaches high school and said, “We expect teens to be responsible and bring a condom for an intimate moment? They can’t even remember to bring a number 2 pencil to class.”
The issue of “abortifacient” contraception is a losing one in terms of preventing it from the market. Griswold vs Connecticut is unlikely to ever be overturned, and as long as the primary FDA labeling and approval indicates a medication is a contraceptive no matter the mechanism, then it will be exempted and unable to be regulated by States.
If the goal and the focus is to be the reduction of the USE of contraception, one only need look at the barriers and drivers to its availability. You can enhance the barriers to it with narrow and targeted, and seemingly completely unrelated legislation. This has been known in economics for hundreds of years.
One of the issues I am constantly involved in with neurological medicines is how to enhance the drivers and acceptance of a medicine. One way is to reduce the barriers using tried and true methods.
The real issue here is the refusal to accept that contraception, the morning after pill, IUDs, ect just aren’t going to be removed from ready access. And it’s the refusal in the big tent of Conservatism with economic conservatives to support targeted initiatives that would ultimately hurt big Pharma, that is its own barrier to reduce use.
Parents are the best tool to shape children, but if I could tell you how many times in my practice I hear “oh you can’t tell my parents!!!” So the moral of the story is that even if you are a good parent, the universal availability of things like this can override that, and if you truly want to reduce contraceptive use, you have to give up a small part of that unregulated market idealism by targeted enhancement of barriers to use
A lot of abusive and predatory people minimize the impact of sexual behavior, believe “no” means “ask again”, and a whole lot of other behaviors that I can see reflected in our culture in general. And if we are raising generations of people who are told sex is no big deal, and we have sitcoms that make a joke out of sexual harassment, rape jokes all over the place… I don’t think we can be surprised about sexual abuse, rape, and just general high risk behavior being prevalent. All that leads to a lot of bad things, up to and including more abortions.
I may bookmark this comment of yours. I think this may be the best explanation of rape culture, the culture of death, and how they intersect that I have ever seen. I can’t like it more than once. But I tried anyway.
“I may bookmark this comment of yours. I think this may be the best explanation of rape culture, the culture of death, and how they intersect that I have ever seen. I can’t like it more than once. But I tried anyway.”
Rape culture and the culture of death are so wrapped up in each other it’s not even funny. I feel like I am banging my head against a wall trying to explain it to my pro-choice feminist friends though. :(
Would you be cool with “othering” parents that would object to the second framing?
Depends on the setting. In a public school setting – no. I don’t think it’s the place to be stepping all over parental rights. Am I cool with explaining my view to people regardless of whether they like it? Yes.
As for the rest, obviously, I think much of that is great to impart to kids. But I think all of those stats open up many more debates that absolutely cannot remain neutral if those debates must be divorced from their moral component. So it sounds like ‘just the facts’, but it goes beyond that. I think the biological facts of sex and discussions about consent are areas that most people could agree on. But again, this has nothing to do with your contention that contraception opponents offer no workable solutions. I’m sure some contraceptive opponents would agree with your ideas and some supporters would absolutely hate them. So I do think it’s a side issue.
Would you agree to the factual presentation if there was a disclaimer, such as “Some religious groups feel that contraceptives damage the procreative purpose of sex, and damage the unity between a couple.” Something like that?
I think it’s certainly needed to approach anything resembling neutrality (though it would have to be phrased in the way that contraceptive opponents understand it, not the way contraception supporters do).
And plus, we need to get PP out of the classroom. Their stuff is predatory and harmful, I have already see what you linked, Patty.
Agree!
From a recent post on my blog as to why feminists are hypocrites when it comes to rape:
Because despite the sexual revolution and despite (and because of) feminism, when it comes to rape women are still living in the 1850s, when Victorian ideals told them that their sexuality was their primary personal asset, and that once it was sullied, most of their value as a human being was gone. Under “patriarchy”, a woman’s entire virtue lay between her legs, and it went to the first man who stuck his dick there, whether she was willing or not. A women’s sexual purity was the responsibility of society, to be protected above life and limb, because a soiled woman was worthless. Therefore rape was the direst of crimes, and women who gave it away willy-nilly were abhorred, shamed and shunned.Say what you want about patriarchy, at least it was consistent.But feminism? I don’t think they’ve thought through their views on the sexual revolution and how they simply cannot be reconciled with the way they wish rape to be seen by society and treated under the law. Because the idea that women who are victims of sex crimes are special, extra-victimy victims and that rape is the worst violation imaginable is rooted in the exact same Victorian morality that slut-shaming is–the idea that a woman’s sexual purity is the most important thing she has, and that she becomes valueless once that purity is gone.
Feminists continue to objectify women and reduce us to the sum of our ladyparts, then scream misogyny/rape when it suits them. Can’t have it both ways-either we are only our sexuality, or we’re not.
Rape is completely the wrong thing to use in your rant against feminism. Not cool.
I’m not the one using it to rant. They are.
You are mischaracterizing the reasons that most feminists, and most reasonable people, think that rape is one of the worst crimes you can do to a person. It’s not about “soiling” anyone, rape victims are not damaged goods and all but the most ignorant people refrain from characterizing them as such. If you want to make a case against feminism, you should argue against statements that they actually believe.
You missed the whole point. Sorry, didn’t realize you were top dog commenter here and in a position to judge everyone else. Have a nice day.
Statements they actually say, like transvaginal ultraound=rape. Yeah, that has nothing to do with what feminists actually say. LOL. See ya.
What a stunning comeback. I am sure responding to your post on a public message board means that I am judging everyone. Lol.
They see the ultrasound debacle as an issue of consent. Which I disagree with, but I have yet to see anyone frame it as “ruining” anyone. Honestly, can’t see where your blog post actually effectively argues against anything I have actually seen your opponents put forth.
Whatever, mangina. I’m sure your feminist masters appreciate your support. Proabort sympathizers are as useless to prolife as proaborts. Carry on with your defense of them. True colors. The point of the post is that feminist hypocrisy is no better than the ‘patriarchy’ they presume to be fighting. Over your head apparently. Laterz.
So rape victims are more ‘victimy’ than other victims of equally violent crimes, simply because we’re women. Yeah, that’s not misogynist at all, is it?
What are you, twelve? Can you take criticism without resorting to insulting people? Sheesh, you are touchy.
As I said before, I understand what you were trying to do. You failed at it because you made a strawman argument of your opponent’s views. It’s really very simple. You cannot point out how feminism is no different from patriarchy when you don’t even characterize feminist arguments correctly
Rape victims are male too… Which most feminists acknowledge, and also acknowledge that male rape victims are devastated from their attacks like women are. Which isn’t misogyny. It’s pretty obvious you ate arguing against some strange version of feminism you invented in your head than actual feminism.
Feminists acknowledge male rape victims? Have yet to see that, ever. I just did point how feminism is no better than patriarchy. Oh, nevermind, I’m sure your ‘prochoice feminist’ friends appreciate your appeasement of them. I had no idea the libs had taken over here. How sad. If I’m so incorrect, feel free to point out where. You’ve yet to do that.
Some ‘strange form of feminism’…don’t spend much time on twitter, do you? Please do keep defending the ideology that promotes abortion, Jack-shows where your true priorities lie.
Seriously, are you gonna pretend you don’t know what victim feminism is? There are many forms of feminism. Google them and educate yourself.
Sigh. Some of us are able to see positive parts of philosophies that we disagree with. I dislike most elements of social conservativism, but I most definitely agree with pro-life ideas. I agree with some aspects of feminist theory, while disagreeing with others, like their support of abortion.
Rape isn’t a more devestating crime than assault because the victims tend more often to be female. It is more damaging because sexuality is an intensely personal and intrinsic part of a person, and having sex forced on you causes more issues than, say, being mugged does. I don’t have time to type out every single thing wrong with your arguments, but that’s one part of it.
Liberals taking over? Because one liberal commenter disagreed with you? Hyperbole much?
LOL. Nevermind. Keep looking for ‘common ground’ with the enemy. That’ll totally end abortion. Have a nice day.
It is a simple numbers game. The more sex, the more pregnancies (even if birth control is being used). There is no 100% contraception and as a result …
Say what you want about patriarchy, at least it was consistent.But feminism? I don’t think they’ve thought through their views on the sexual revolution and how they simply cannot be reconciled with the way they wish rape to be seen by society and treated under the law.
So an ideology that seeks to end oppression and get society to treat women as what they are–people–is worse than a system that oppresses and victimizes half of the human race by reducing them to nothing but a set of genitals which are potent exactly one time in their life because, “Hey, at least that second one’s consistent!”
You. Are. An. Idiot. That is one of the ugliest, most disgusting, most ludicrous opinions I have ever seen anyone voice.
You’re a bigger idiot, Alice-men and children are also raped daily. Get off the woman are demigods bandwagon and wake up to equality. The only ones enslaving themselves are feminists-enslaved to their own libidos. Rape isn’t just a crime women experience. Quit trying to marginalize half the population.
LOL, feminists have never made me feel marginalized. Equality is a good think, MPCQ. Sorry it scares you. :(
True equality doesn’t need to treat women as perpetual victims, Jack. Get well soon.
According to bc marketers the number of times you have sex is not relevant to your chance of pregnant….. I call them out on that all the time. Consequence free sex is the image they market to teens. How can women of any age be ignorant enough not to question that little bit of illogic?
Don’t be naive. PParenthood is in the abortion business. They would not be dispensing contraceptives unless they knew the failure rate. They know the “human factor”. They know (as crisis pregnancy counselors know) that it is a statistical reality that couples who are struggling in their relationship often end up pregnant. I believe that it is because God made women to be security minded and (consciously or subconsciously) they forget to use their contraceptives hoping that a pregnancy will keep their boyfriend in the relationship. It happens all the time!
PParenthood also pushes the pill and condoms knowing that teens simply “forget”. They are not yet mature.
Pparenthood does not want to stop unwanted pregnancies. There is no money in barrenness! The money to be made is in the abortions! They know what they are doing.
They also know that the worse a woman feels about herself (used, unwanted and guilty), the more she will make “mistakes” and get pregnant.
My daughter works at a maternity center for women in crisis. Most of the women are having their fourth, fifth or sixth child. They come to the center to stay off drugs during the duration of the pregnancy, the state takes their children and puts them into foster care (another evil system is CPS and foster care. They get more Federal money, the more children they can bring into the system. They do NOT want to empty the system…they lose money if they can’t get children).
We who try to protect the unborn and women need to be very wise, very cynical and very educated.
As a 16year old, my mother sent me to PParenthood for their “Sex Ed class” (my mom thinks PParenthood is the best thing since sliced bread). I was shown every kind of perverted sex act via films. Bowls of condoms were passed around. I was told over and over, “Abortion is just like getting a mole removed”??!!! Really?? They give women that kind of information and call it “choice”?
I was raped by the information in that class.
May God have mercy on our souls for allowing such evil to permeate our country and our schools.
Jill Farris (mother of 8 beautiful children who are changing the world)