Social Policy Hindsight Thought Experiments:

In thinking about the empirical analysis of social policies, I've thought it sometimes useful to take the actual results of the policies and then look back and think whether the policy still would have been adopted had the architects of the policy known what the results would be. The answer might still be yes, but thinking about the costs and benefits through this lens helps to illuminate the trade-offs without the inherent biases that people seem to have in admitting that they were mistaken in the first place.

For instance, had the architects of Prohibition known the full costs and benefits that resulted from Prohibition, would they have still supported it? Perhaps yes, but surely the full range of unintended consequences of Prohibition were not fully seen at the time, and if they had been it is not obvious that they would have supported it (and of course they actually ended up repealing it). I recall seeing this same analysis of welfare policy prior to welfare reform in the 1990s: had the architects of the Great Society welfare programs known the unintended consequences that would flow from welfare reform, would they have still supported it?

Another one I wonder about is whether had the Federalists been able to anticipate the course of American constitutional history, would they have nonetheless opposed the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution (Madison changed his mind, of course)? It is an interesting thought experiment to think about how American history would have been different had the Federalists prevailed and no Bill of Rights would have been added to the Constitution. One suspects, for instance, that the Supreme Court would have spent most of its time enforcing structural constitutional restrictions and enumerated powers rather than individual rights provisions. Whether that would have been better or worse is an interesting question--it certainly would have been different.

In this vein I offer a provocative essay by Mary Eberstadt on birth control and the sexual revolution. She writes about it through the lens of the Papal Encyclical Humanae Vitae, but I'm interested in it here as a non-religious sociological analysis. My guess is that most readers will conclude that the sexual revolution was a net positive for society. Certainly there were major social and widespread individual benefits from the sexual revolution and birth control technology, and one suspects that many of these social benefits were unforeseen at the time as well. Increased personal autonomy, freedom, and social and economic opportunities for women are certainly important benefits of access to birth control that most of us will easily recognize. Nonetheless, while most readers will conclude that the benefits overall outweighed the costs, Eberstadt frames the issue in a way that certainly caused me to think more deeply about the full costs and benefits of these social developments:

Let’s begin by meditating upon what might be called the first of the secular ironies now evident: Humanae Vitae’s specific predictions about what the world would look like if artificial contraception became widespread. The encyclical warned of four resulting trends: a general lowering of moral standards throughout society; a rise in infidelity; a lessening of respect for women by men; and the coercive use of reproductive technologies by governments.

In the years since Humanae Vitae’s appearance, numerous distinguished Catholic thinkers have argued, using a variety of evidence, that each of these predictions has been borne out by the social facts.

Speculation on the causes of such broad social trends is difficult, of course. Nonetheless, much of the rest of the article is concerned with laying out the empirical case that each of these four developments have actually come about. And reading the list of predicted effects (even before considering the empirical evidence Eberstadt marshals) it seems accurate to me that these are unintended consequences that have in fact come about as side-effects of access to artificial birth control. As Eberstadt stresses, most of this sociological evidence has been developed by secular scholars.

In the end, Eberstadt can be criticized for failing to fully account for the benefits of the sexual revolution, so it is not clear that Humanae Vitae has been "vindicated" (of course, this is a short magazine piece and most readers will easily be able to recognize the benefits of these developments to weigh them in the balance). Nonetheless, I thought it a fresh way of thinking about one of the major social developments of the Twentieth Century as it causes us to think about some of the costs associated with developments that are generally thought to be socially beneficial.

M (mail):
I'd insist, too, that it's not clear that the "lowering of moral standards" is itself a harm (in reference to sexual morality it seems to me, in light of birth control, a positive good). And, if by "infidelity" she means not deception in marriage but just sex outside of marriage then that's not obviously a harm (and is often a good) too. I'm also not at all sure that women are less respected by men now- if anything, they seem more so, I'd say, since I don't think the old view was a very respectful one. So, you already have to agree with many of her conclusions to think most of these things are "bad" results.
7.26.2008 9:17am
corneille1640 (mail):
I agree with "M" that many of the so-called "bad" results are things many people (for example, me) might celebrate as positive goods. But I think the question is more whether advocates of sexual freedom in the early 20th century necessarily envisioned or would have found desirable these new developments. I'm inclined to think they would, but the question is a bit different than whether the changes themselves ought to be celebrated.
7.26.2008 10:09am
mgarbowski:
It is absurd that we supposedly have a fully functioning social sciences academy, and in 40 years, nobody has bothered to research this. A major world religious leader wrote an extremely famous essay making predictions about how certain social changes would play out. For decades this essay has been celebrated by a few, and jeered at by many. Yet, until a magazine article in a religious publication, nobody bothered to actually check the Pope's predictions against reality. Amazing. Why oh why can't we have a basically competent and unbiased social services academy?
7.26.2008 10:37am
Mitchell Freedman (mail) (www):
Each one of Mary Eberstat's assumptions is questionable and probably wrong:

1. Has there been a general lowering of moral standards throughout society? Let's compare the actions and attitudes of male Americans against women and Americans of both sexes against blacks of both sexes from before the 1960s and after. Most women and blacks of both sexes, if they were transported back to 1958, for example, would be screaming to get out and back to our time. They'd be to the cultural left of Gloria Steinem in regard to asking for what they would right perceive as just "simple dignity" in their workplace or lives. Just watch the tv show MadMen on AMC if you don't have time to read sociologically oriented studies of what it was like to be a woman in the workplace, in personal relationships, etc.

2. Has there been a rise in infidelity? Eberstat should at least recognize that there was a deep hypocrisy going on behind a lower divorce rate that existed before World War II. As Barbara Ehrenreich point out in her book, Hearts of Men, the infidelity we were so upset about the 1960s began among men in the 1950s. That is where the loss of commitment began in any "modern" discourse or sense. Ever talk to a now old businessman as to what occurred at most males-only or near males only business convention back in the 1950s? There were prostitutes galore and affairs galore--by men with unmarried and sometimes married women. Since the 1950s and especially since the 1960s, there has been more openness, and as people live longer, longer marriages become more difficult to sustain. Too often, one sees the man in his 50s, still feeling robust, who winds up with the 28 year old woman and leaves his wife--even as his first wife still feels robust. Is that a generalization? Yes, but not as wide as Eberstat's generalizations.

3. Has there been a lessening of respect for women by men? Just look back at no. 1 above and ask yourself if men are really disrespecting women more today than decades ago.

4. Finally, Eberstat speaks of the coercive use of reproductive technologies by governments. That is not the American experience since the advent of the 1960s. Carrie Buck was forcibly sterilized in the 1920s, and there were some women who may have been forcibly sterilized in places like Mississippi in the 1960s (I may well be wrong about this latter point, which only strengthens my overall disgust at Eberstat's statement as could be applied to the US). The Chinese government's policy of one child per husband and wife is a statement about how dictators act elsewhere, not about morality in the US, which is what she wants to ultimately argue.

Eberstat needs a refresher course in American sociology and anthropology. If she only read about how women, traumatized by cheating and vindictive men, were forced into mental institutions (think Frances Farmer in the 1940s, let alone many women who suffered this fate in silence in the late 19th Century). If she only read about the violence women endured in marriages before the advent of the 1960s, she might step back from her exceedingly narrow focus about contraception. Anti-contraception pills are far more a liberator for women's lives than a problem. Eberstat wrongly blames anti-contraception pills and the like when the real problem remains men's disrespect for women and government oppression in foreign lands. The magazine that printed her essay should be embarrassed.
7.26.2008 10:39am
Anonymous Attorney:
To my eye, the article is very long on bald assertions about causation and very light on actual evidence. While the "evidence" may have been developed by social scholars, the conclusions favorable to "Humanae Vitae" seem to be entirely her own.
7.26.2008 10:42am
SupremacyClaus (mail) (www):
All law making, including decisions of first impression, is human experimentation. The Constitution should mandate that all laws get tested in small jurisdictions. If proven safe and effective, retested in larger jurisdictions. If safety and efficacy get proven again, then enact.

Law makers are now ghoulish, amateurish, incompetent human experimenters, with self-dealt immunities, outside of losing a re-election. This loss often results in lucrative jobs outside of government, and is not a negative consequence.

The second constitutional remedy is to pass an amendment ending all self-dealt governmental immunities. Let these incompetents compensate the victims of their carelessness.
7.26.2008 11:14am
theobromophile (www):
To my eye, the article is very long on bald assertions about causation and very light on actual evidence.

To a lawyer or a blogger, yes - we expect everything to be footnoted, with a nice paragraph in the footnotes summing up the relevant provisions of the text. Bloggers expect a hyperlink.

Eberstadt doesn't make bald assertions, however; she cites to various social scientists, authors, and thinkers. In par. 4-7 of Part II, for example, she cites the works of 13 economists, social scientists, and other thinkers. Perhaps she assumes that her audience is familiar with these works; perhaps "First Things" doesn't allow for footnotes - especially the kind we're used to seeing in law review articles.
7.26.2008 11:45am
Javert:

In the years since Humanae Vitae’s appearance, numerous distinguished Catholic thinkers have argued, using a variety of evidence, that each of these predictions has been borne out by the social facts.
And one can show a coorelation between the use of semicolons in the NYT and monsoons in India. Fallacies 101: post hoc ergo propter hoc.
7.26.2008 11:47am
Vernunft (mail) (www):
Being a man, I'm thrilled with the sexual revolution and its shifting of the burden so harshly to women. It's pretty awesome.
7.26.2008 11:51am
Mitchell Freedman (mail) (www):
Theobromophile,

Eberstat's citations are drive bys. She hopes nobody actually reads what she cites because, if anyone did, they'd quickly realize that none of the feminist writers would agree with Eberstat's assumptions that there has been some sort of cultural decline in how men treat women. If anything, the feminists are saying things are still bad, but certainly no worse as to how men treat women overall. That is not the same as Eberstat's argument that we should end the use of anti-contraception technologies with the belief that men would treat women better thereafter. That is what makes Eberstat a loon.
7.26.2008 11:52am
Chris Bell (mail) (www):
Mary Eberstadt has been doing a long-running series of atheism at NRO. I think part 7 was last week. The premise of the whole thing is a long-running parody of her conversion to atheism. It's written from (her idea of) a modern young woman, who finds her new atheism "so rad".

It's absolutely atrocious.

(I think even the hard right has been cringing each time she publishes a new one.)
7.26.2008 12:01pm
Fub:
SupremacyClaus wrote at 7.26.2008 10:14am:
All law making, including decisions of first impression, is human experimentation. The Constitution should mandate that all laws get tested in small jurisdictions. If proven safe and effective, retested in larger jurisdictions. If safety and efficacy get proven again, then enact.
As your choice of terms "human experimentation" and "safe and effective" suggest, this is not entirely uncharted conceptual territory. We only need look at the effects upon the pharmaceutical marketplace from the Kefauver Harris Amendment of 1962 to see an analog of what to expect from such a law.

Since legislation includes repeal of laws, do we really want to enable such a circus when bad laws are repealed?
7.26.2008 12:09pm
Daniel Chapman (mail):
Would "anti-contraception" technology be like some sort of sports drink a man could take to counteract birth control pills?

I'm not sure who would want to use such a technology, but your theory interests me, Mitchell... want to explain where you've heard of it? Please be sure to cite all your sources thoroughly.
7.26.2008 12:13pm
Mitchell Freedman (mail) (www):
Sorry for the awkwardness of the comment, but Daniel, you know I am talking about "the Pill," as you mention it in the same sentence. If that's the best you can do to refute my point against Eberstadt, then I guess you are intellectually unarmed.
7.26.2008 12:16pm
JosephSlater (mail):
Mitchell Freedman absolutely nailed this one in every regard. I'll just add that as an historian, I cringe evertime I hear folks generically pining for the good old days when people were more "moral."
7.26.2008 12:18pm
Daniel Chapman (mail):
pfft... who needs to bother "refuting" you? Not me!

I was just picking on you because you sound so arrogant in your posts, but clearly don't even understand the terminology you're using.

"The Pill" IS contraception... not anti-contraception.
7.26.2008 12:24pm
Mitchell Freedman (mail) (www):
Comments tend to be written quickly, Daniel, as you know. I did not write the article Eberstadt wrote.

So you caught me in a brain fart. Wonderful. And jolly for you.

Too bad the arrogance is facing you in your mirror. Why don't you correct someone's spelling, next?
7.26.2008 12:27pm
Daniel Chapman (mail):
Yes, your brain seems to have been farting in about 5 different comments you posted... a typo is one thing, but this is more like getting the name of the president wrong in a discussion of american politics.

Anyway... you're welcome for the vocabulary lesson, and I will now let you rant uninhibited.
7.26.2008 12:32pm
Seamus (mail):
Has there been a rise in infidelity? Eberstat should at least recognize that there was a deep hypocrisy going on behind a lower divorce rate that existed before World War II. As Barbara Ehrenreich point out in her book, Hearts of Men, the infidelity we were so upset about the 1960s began among men in the 1950s.

In other words, yes, there was an increase in infidelity, but because the rate of female infidelity is now more equal to that of male infidelity, it's all good.
7.26.2008 12:58pm
theobromophile (www):
Mitchell Freedman,

I think we're talking past each other. The part I cited (Sec. II, para. 4-7) was her summation of the social science research into poverty, divorce, out-of-wedlock births, etc.

When I read her article, I didn't take from it the same thing you did, i.e. that the feminists are saying exactly what she is saying. Gottlieb's article, for example, was discussed (witha very, um... interesting? comment thread) at Volokh a few months back, and it seems to have said pretty much what Eberstadt says that it did. The feminists don't follow Eberstadt's thinking, but she is arguing that they should, if they choose to think through their positions.

I was not alive in the 1950s, so I cannot speak to the way that men treated women back then. (Incidentally, where do you get the '50s as a default position? Eberstadt goes back to 1908 with her discussion of birth control.) Likewise, you are also ill-equipped to discuss what it is like to be a young woman in today's world.

I - a modern woman, late 20s, unmarried, law degree - cannot help feeling as if we've traded one set of problems for another: that we've gone from lamenting how married men seek out prostitutes to having them seek out every single female with a pulse for the same needs, with the same expectation that those needs will be met by her.

I am not alone in my thinking, either. Many of my friends - although not a random sample of women in their 20s and 30s - likewise lament the effects of the sexual revolution. They have law degrees, medical degrees, and PhDs, but feel as if they are living in a loony bin. The "committed relationship" standard of the '60s and '70s devolved - rather quickly - into the "third date" standard of the '80s, and, now, is first date - or, often, no date at all.

Far from moving beyond the times in which men would seek sexual gratification from prostitutes, we've moved into an era in which men treat all women like hookers. Sort of. At least if I were a sex worker, I could get paid for doing what men expect me to do for free.
7.26.2008 1:04pm
therut:
People may not have been more moral but our society had better manners. I was getting gas yesterday and a father in his 20's had his about 5 y/o daughter with him and every other word out of his mouth was F--K this and that. That would not have been tolerated in public when I was a child. Where I grew up men did not curse in public. Also I went to a funeral and had to stand the whole time. I immediately thought when I grew up the men would have been appauled if another man had sat there while a woman had to stand. Not one man even gave his seat up. Things have changed. I did get the door opened for me by a man at Wendys so there are still a few people with old-time manners.
7.26.2008 1:06pm
Oren:
therut, nobody objects to old time manners themselves, but packaged as they were with old-time bigotry and sexism and I, for one, would rather leave them behind.
7.26.2008 1:46pm
byomtov (mail):
Anyone who can claim that there has been a lessening of respect for women by men is not worth being taken seriously.

Mitchell Freedman's comment on this and the other three points is exactly correct.
7.26.2008 1:48pm
loki13 (mail):
It's all been going down hill since....

agriculture.

(BTW, theobromophile, without the sexual revolution, there wouldn't be many of you random 20 and 30 yr. old young women with MDs and PhDs and JDs... and as far as "men expect [you] to do it for free" well, you do have a choice, y'know. Free will and all that.)
7.26.2008 1:54pm
loki13 (mail):
Allow me to rephrase my response to theobromophile-


Her complaint is that her random 20 and 30 yr. old PhD/MD/JD female friends are only meeting men with sex on their minds. To which I have two responses:

1. Bars are not the best places to find long-term relationships.

2. Do you prefer the situation you are in now, are pre-birth control, where you and your 20 and 30 yr. old married-at-18, high-school educated friends (maybe) would meet for knitting circles and recipe sharing while the kids played? Note- you *could* still choose this option today, but it is a choice, not a destiny.
7.26.2008 2:25pm
good strategy (mail):
The claim that sexual freedom ultimately hurts women by amping up chauvinism is especially problematic since that's the rationale used by Islamists for repressive policies against women.

Isn't it interesting how men gain power in their individual relationships by accusing men in general of being inherently uncivilized?
7.26.2008 2:41pm
GatoRat:
I seriously question the meme that moral standards have declined. We look at the past through rose colored glasses, ignoring how atrocious it actually was beneath a glossy veneer. Even the 19th century Victorian world was an extremely violent, immoral world despite the carefully orchestrated charade of the upper middle class.

One often forgotten thing was how sexually liberated American society was in the 1920s before the pendulum swung back the other direction.
7.26.2008 3:16pm
theobromophile (www):
Loki - how do you figure that? I haven't needed contraception to get where I am today. Neither have my friends. The SEXUAL revolution is just that; it may have come from the same idea that got women into education and the workplace, but it's not the same movement. Frankly, I find it a bit offensive to correlate orgasms with the work it took to get my education....

By the same logic, men should never have gotten advanced degrees before the sexual revolution, as they would have been dads at age 18, which makes it a bit difficult to support a family. (Yes, back then, men tended to be married to their baby mammas, more often than not.... Radical.) How were there any doctors?!?

Yes, I have a choice to say "no" to men, but it's entirely unpleasant to be treated that way.

Now, as for the idea that getting girls into bed gets them into college: sexually active teenagers are less likely to graduate high school, go to college, and graduate from college once there (here). While this is not necessarily causative, I will also note that a paediatrician recently noted that teenage girls who have sex tend to be more depressed after becoming sexually active, so much so that she said that depression ought to be considered a sexually transmitted disease. (I'll dig up the cite for anyone who wants it.)

As a final thought: we could give women contraception and tell them that their bodies should work like men's bodies - sterile, barren, and unable to bring forth life after sexual activity. Alternatively, we could - rather than change women - change the society in which we live - the society that makes it difficult to be a pregnant or parenting college student or career woman. When children are a choice, however, and pregnancy is the result of a failure to use contraception, not the natural result of a woman's body working the way it was designed to work, there is little need for this.

While women can certainly bear children in their 30s, and perhaps their 40s, reality is that it's harder for women - harder to conceive, to carry to term, and harder to be a parent when older. Given that most women want marriage and parenthood, why have we set up a society that stuffs the Pill down the throats of women in their fertile years and called it feminism?
7.26.2008 3:48pm
theobromophile (www):
P.S. Loki - what makes you think I've EVER looked for a long-term relationship in a bar? Or any relationship at all?
7.26.2008 3:59pm
loki13 (mail):
theobromophile,

Wow, as a child of this generation, you are so far from the point you can't even see it from your vantage. While there are some negatives from the sexual revolution, the major advantage was giving women the option of choosing to bear children if they had sex. This had societal consequences. While correlation does not imply causation, do you think there might be, um, more than a coincidence that all the male-dominated (completely) professions began to open up to women at the same time as the sexual revolution? Why? Because it was widely understood that women could choose to have a career. More importantly, women could delay childbirth, chose a career, then have children later.

As for a society that 'shoves the pill down the throats of women in their fertile years'... uh, yeah. Free will. Remember? If you want to be barefoot and pregnant and married at 18, there are plenty of communities in America where that is a viable choice. If you want to delay marriage (and pregnancy) until after your JD/MD, that is your choice, too.

Don't need the Taliban around to tell me what to do, thank you.
7.26.2008 4:06pm
loki13 (mail):

P.S. Loki - what makes you think I've EVER looked for a long-term relationship in a bar? Or any relationship at all?


It's a joke. I apologize if I hit too close to home.
7.26.2008 4:08pm
frankcross (mail):
This strikes me as similar to some of the Catholic Church's statements about capitalism. I.e., that it has had a corrosive effect on societal morality. I wonder how many people share both positions.
7.26.2008 4:26pm
TGGP (mail) (www):
Forget the Bill of Rights, it's the Constitution the Federalists were wrong about. The Anti-Federalists have been proven correct by history, but nobody remembers them because Americans love winners.
7.26.2008 4:46pm
Random Commenter:
"It's a joke. I apologize if I hit too close to home."

Are you making an effort to be an ass, Loki, or does it just come naturally to you?
7.26.2008 5:10pm
Oren:
The SEXUAL revolution is just that; it may have come from the same idea that got women into education and the workplace, but it's not the same movement.
Seriously, you can't see that both come from the same blasphemous ideology that dares assert that men and women are fully equals?

How on earth can you get equality in the workplace but not the bedroom? You'd have to tie yourself into knots just to get in the door.
7.26.2008 5:22pm
Randy R. (mail):
"Anyone who can claim that there has been a lessening of respect for women by men is not worth being taken seriously."

Yup. and for anyone associated with the Catholic Church to complain about how women don't get the respect they deserve is the height of irony. Few institutions have been so good at institutionalizing disrespect for women.

As for infidelity, some studies show that in Victorian London, there was about one prostitute for every man, and sex outside of marriage was not only common, but expected.

As for coerciveness, the Church has been the leader at trying to stop people from using contraception, and backed laws that would prohibit its use. I guess it's not 'coercive' if the Church does it, right?
7.26.2008 5:24pm
rjs:

As for coerciveness, the Church has been the leader at trying to stop people from using contraception, and backed laws that would prohibit its use. I guess it's not 'coercive' if the Church does it, right?


It is not coercive if the church does it because the only power the church has is over association.


As for infidelity, some studies show that in Victorian London, there was about one prostitute for every man, and sex outside of marriage was not only common, but expected.


Were all of the women moonlighting?
7.26.2008 6:05pm
Arkady:
American Catholics for the most part completely ignore the Church's teachings on contraception. This has had the consequence of weakening the moral power (hence, power period) of the Church. No wonder the hierarchy was/is alarmed.
7.26.2008 6:11pm
p. rich (mail) (www):
Increased personal autonomy, freedom, and social and economic opportunities for women are certainly important benefits of access to birth control that most of us will easily recognize.

What you mean "us"? Many of "us", male and female, are not invested in the little red Feminist Revolutionary Handbook.

The Constitution should mandate that all laws get tested in small jurisdictions.

You mean like, um, states, for example? What a bizarre notion. Well, if one is a true modern liberal, I suppose...
7.26.2008 6:28pm
theobromophile (www):
How on earth can you get equality in the workplace but not the bedroom? You'd have to tie yourself into knots just to get in the door.

Well, Oren, getting tied up is half the fun....
7.26.2008 6:32pm
theobromophile (www):
It's a joke. I apologize if I hit too close to home.

Emoticons can be your friend. The ;) indicates, for example, that you're kidding - especially necessary when you're saying something that a lot of people say in funeral seriousness. :p pppttttt

It hit close to home - because everyone and their mother says that to me - well, everyone who is unaware that I don't spend my time in bars and that I've dated friends of friends, men I've met in school, etc. It's the "Are you a lesbian" (said to single women in their 30s) of 2008.
7.26.2008 6:35pm
Oren:
Well, Oren, getting tied up is half the fun....
You have my complete support.

p., the increase in productivity and wealth caused by not discarding the skills and labor of half the population are not at all restricted in their benefit. What sane economist (of any persuasion) would advise that such a labor arrangement is unfavorable?
7.26.2008 6:57pm
frankcross (mail):
Intriguing thing about this board is that someone will object to

Increased personal autonomy, freedom, and social and economic opportunities for women

You don't see that everywhere
7.26.2008 7:26pm
theobromophile (www):
Increased personal autonomy, freedom, and social and economic opportunities for women

Like using racial preferences to "increase opportunity for students of colour," I don't think it's the goal that anyone objects to, but rather the mechanism.
7.26.2008 7:37pm
frankcross (mail):
p.rich pretty much objected to the goal, according to the ordinary understanding of the language in his post.
7.26.2008 7:56pm
theobromophile (www):
Increased personal autonomy, freedom, and social and economic opportunities for women are certainly important benefits of access to birth control that most of us will easily recognize.


What you mean "us"? Many of "us", male and female, are not invested in the little red Feminist Revolutionary Handbook.

P. Rich responded to the second clause: "important benefits of access to birth control that most of us will easily recognise." The way I read it - with the objection to "us" - is that some people, according to P. Rich, do not believe that those are the benefits of birth control.
7.26.2008 8:03pm
loki13 (mail):

It's a joke. I apologize if I hit too close to home.


Emoticons can be your friend. The ;) indicates, for example, that you're kidding - especially necessary when you're saying something that a lot of people say in funeral seriousness. :p pppttttt

It hit close to home - because everyone and their mother says that to me - well, everyone who is unaware that I don't spend my time in bars and that I've dated friends of friends, men I've met in school, etc. It's the "Are you a lesbian" (said to single women in their 30s) of 2008.


While I realize nuance can be lost on teh intertubez, I refuse to use emoticons as a matter of principle. I figgered the one-liner could be understood in context, but did not realize the subtext it had to you (hence, the apology). Nevertheless, I expect David Bernstein to post on this thread shortly defending me, as we all know there are no subtexts to words and no 'dog whistles', and saying 'states rights' in the South is simply talkin' bout Federalism.

(Then we can dig it...

Who is the man,
who would risk his neck for...state's... um... FEDERALISM...
Reagan!
Can ya dig it?

He's a complicated man
But no one understands him but his David Bernstein
Ronald Reagan
(right on!)
7.26.2008 8:16pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
As for infidelity, some studies show that in Victorian London, there was about one prostitute for every man, and sex outside of marriage was not only common, but expected.
Uh, I think you should be skeptical of any "study" which showed that. Either the researcher was innumerate, or was some sort of ideological feminist who considered all marriage a form of prostitution.
7.26.2008 8:23pm
NickM (mail) (www):

As for infidelity, some studies show that in Victorian London, there was about one prostitute for every man, and sex outside of marriage was not only common, but expected.
Uh, I think you should be skeptical of any "study" which showed that. Either the researcher was innumerate, or was some sort of ideological feminist who considered all marriage a form of prostitution.


Or both.

Nick
7.26.2008 8:58pm
Perseus (mail):
Has there been a general lowering of moral standards throughout society? Let's compare the actions and attitudes of male Americans against women and Americans of both sexes against blacks of both sexes from before the 1960s and after. Most women and blacks of both sexes, if they were transported back to 1958, for example, would be screaming to get out and back to our time.

Since Eberstadt clearly refers to those moral standards concerning the relationship between the sexes, sexuality, procreation, children, families, and related issues, how are the attitudes of American men towards blacks immediately relevant? Or is this just your typical knee-jerk liberal response?
7.26.2008 9:31pm
frankcross (mail):
Maybe, theobromophile, but the reference to Feminism suggests to me that he was objecting to the gains for women.

Here's an interesting question for libertarians. Generally, a libertarian would believe that the government shouldn't suppress birth control, because of personal freedom. This contains a presumption, I have always thought, that technologies providing individual freedom of choice were good by their very nature of empowering freedoms. So a libertarian would reject a position that cars never should have been invented because of the harms they do (simply because choice and technological advance is good).

Maybe I'm missing something, but this position seems very anti-freedom. I think it's pretty obvious that freedom does lower "moral standards" at least as those standards are defined by the Catholic Church. But that applies to lots of freedoms, certainly including capitalist freedom.
7.26.2008 10:51pm
Leo Linbeck III (mail):
For the VC crowd, it is plausible that women are treated with greater respect than, say, 50 years ago. (Although it is far from certain - we are programmed to pay attention to the bad exceptions, not the good averages.)

But for huge chunks of our society, it is plainly true that women are treated like sexual chattel. Just listen to hip-hop or read Dalrymple...

L3
7.26.2008 11:05pm
Buster (mail):
Pope Paul VI, the author of Humanae Vitae, had a hell of a lot more intellectual humility than Mitchell Freedman.
7.26.2008 11:16pm
theobromophile (www):
Frankcross - we're going to have to agree to disagree about this - feminism can mean a lot of things. The third-wavers would tell you that it means pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, etc etc. Others would give you a definition that Susan B. Anthony would get on board with. So... maybe P. Rich can explain himself what he meant...?

As for libertarians: who said anything about the government?!? I could be wrong, but I think you're misstating the libertarian position a bit. The limits that the government puts on people should be different from the limits that we - individually, as families, social groups, and as a society - put on people.

I guess the best analogy would be fast food. As a libertarian, I would throw a fit and a half if it were banned (even though I despise the stuff). Nevertheless, I don't think that it's a good choice for a lot (or all) people, so I'll happily discuss the downsides of it. All choices are not necessarily good, and, ideally, we'll weed the bad ones out of the marketplace - a Darwinism of choice, if you will.
7.26.2008 11:33pm
M. Simon (mail) (www):
Here are a couple of articles that may help:

Demographics
More Demographics

BTW birth control is not the only problem for traditional marriage. Home appliances are another.
7.26.2008 11:35pm
Perseus (mail):
Maybe I'm missing something, but this position seems very anti-freedom. I think it's pretty obvious that freedom does lower "moral standards" at least as those standards are defined by the Catholic Church.

It is only "anti-freedom" if you accept the typical libertarian definition of freedom. The Catholic Church (among others) obviously disagrees with that definition.
7.26.2008 11:37pm
Leo Linbeck III (mail):
Oh, and one more thing:

I'm not all that clear on the "benefits" of the sexual revolution. As a person who is Married, Heterosexual, and Faithful™, I don't really feel like I'm better off (in a purely sexual way) than my MHF™ counterpart of 50 years ago. Or worse off. I'm just fine. Sex does not dominate my life, but it's a delightful part of it, in no small part because it brings me closer to the woman I love and has resulted in 2 of our 5 kids.

I'm just saying everyone seems to accept the benefits as a given, but I'm not really sure they're all that big, especially when compared to the costs...

L3
7.26.2008 11:42pm
M. Simon (mail) (www):
People may not have been more moral but our society had better manners. I was getting gas yesterday and a father in his 20's had his about 5 y/o daughter with him and every other word out of his mouth was F--K this and that.

Perhaps he was a Navy man?
7.26.2008 11:49pm
Inspector Callahan (mail):
My opinion - it's been a zero-sum game. In some ways, things are better; and in some other ways, things are worse.

For you professionals - lawyers, scientists, etc., obviously the freedoms women have can't even be compared to before. But venture down into the ghettos of the inner cities, or the trailer parks of rural America, and tell me those women have it better thanks to the sexual revolution.

When you're sitting in an ivory tower, it's tough to see the forest for the trees...

TV (Harry)
7.26.2008 11:57pm
Dave Hardy (mail) (www):
Gad, mention sex and flamewar ensures, over religion, politics, and lord knows what. At least nobody's blaming G.W. Bush so far.

As an oldster who grew up during the relevant timeframes, I can say... let's put it this way, There is no question that chances are open to women now that were not earlier on -- but I rather doubt that has anything to do with contraception and the sexual revolution per se.

But as to the rest ... as an example, I'd consider the comments to the lady (not female, you will note) professional out of line, altho today they would be considered rather mild. You open doors for the "better half." You use no cuss words beyond maybe "damn" around them (and in the case of women in their 60s and 70s, don't use even that). Not looking for possibilities now, but in my younger days, you must regard sex as a privilege to be earned rather than a right to be demanded. (In somewhat younger days heard males demand it as if a deprivation were an insult.
7.26.2008 11:58pm
M. Simon (mail) (www):
But venture down into the ghettos of the inner cities, or the trailer parks of rural America, and tell me those women have it better thanks to the sexual revolution.

Uh. The sexual revolution had more to do with demographics than birth control. Look up the demographics of the sexual revolution time. Men were in short supply from birth (in the 40s) on. The war helped increase the pressure. Birth control did give it a very big shove.

It is an economic thing. In a buyers market giving free samples is a way to entice customers. In a sellers market you raise prices and establish waiting lists.

BTW when did the first American sexual revolution occur? Post WW1. (flappers anyone?) In that day and age Henry Ford was blamed.
7.27.2008 12:03am
frankcross (mail):
Theo, I'm not sure I understand your position. I agree with you about fast food, but I think that people are the best judges of their own interests (better than me, I don't even known them). While some people unwisely eat fast food, I assume that the option generally is good, because people on average know their best interests better than I do. As soon as you say: "I know better than the people exercising their free choice," you are theoretically, if not explicitly, saying that free choice should be constrained. The problem is that people say they are for freedom, except those freedoms they don't like. That's not being for freedom.

I think the capitalist marketplace weeds out bad choices, but it hasn't done so for the pill or for fast food for that matter.
7.27.2008 12:04am
M. Simon (mail) (www):
The war I referred to in 7.26.2008 11:03pm was the Vietnam War.
7.27.2008 12:06am
Ken Mitchell (mail):
The idea that marital infidelity is somehow a result of the invention of birth control and of the sexual revolution is laughable. Men and women both have ALWAYS had affairs; the only change now is that affairs less often result in children.

Genealogical studies have indicated that up to 15% of children are NOT sired by the putative father, and pre-DNA testing, it wasn't always possible to know for sure.

Did easy and reliable birth control increase infidelity? Quite probably. CAUSE it? Not even!
7.27.2008 12:34am
Oren:
Since Eberstadt clearly refers to those moral standards concerning the relationship between the sexes, sexuality, procreation, children, families, and related issues, how are the attitudes of American men towards blacks immediately relevant? Or is this just your typical knee-jerk liberal response?
Well, the systematic exclusion of black folk from the body politic speaks volumes about the real values of those that permitted it to continue. People may have driven on the streets more courteously, perhaps, but a country that denies its citizens their basic rights in such a fashion cannot be said to be polite.

More broadly, the folly of native nostalgia that remembers the past without its faults is compounded when you compare that idealized past with an imperfect present. No real world state of affairs will ever compare to our whitewashed remembrance of the past.
7.27.2008 12:52am
Oren:
It is an economic thing. In a buyers market giving free samples is a way to entice customers. In a sellers market you raise prices and establish waiting lists.
I would think that, wars and such excepted, there would generally be a balance of buyers and sellers in this particular market.

BTW when did the first American sexual revolution occur? Post WW1. (flappers anyone?) In that day and age Henry Ford was blamed.
More likely during prohibition -- everyone was drinking a whole lot more.
7.27.2008 12:54am
Randy R. (mail):
WWI played a part too. SErvicemen came back from overseas and saw a very different way of life. The war itself brought down a lot of illusions that sustained whole cultures for decades or more. The Lost Generation was called that because they had lost the illusions of the past -- or something like that.

The movies played a part. It loosened up the morals by showing people kissing and showing affection, and the movies of the 20s were not afraid to tackle difficult social issues, such as abortion, homosexuality, suicide, alcoholism, infidelity, loneliness and so on.

Mae West wrote a play called Sex, and she was arrested, yet it was highly popular on Broadway.

The economic boom played a part. Now people didn't have to work as domestics much anymore, and they had more money and free time. So they partied.

I don't believe there was any one reason, but a combination of various factors, that changed the morals of the country.
7.27.2008 1:36am
XON:
Dave Hardy,

I blame G.W. Bush.
7.27.2008 1:57am
theobromophile (www):
Frankcross - that's not what I'm saying.

Last time I checked my Libertarian Handbook, there is nothing - NOTHING - out there that says that people are always fully informed and have no need for more information.

If you want to make a choice - fine - it's your right to do so. But making educated choices is the ideal - for the market, for the individual, and for society in general.

What you seem to want to do is to deny people an opportunity to debate and add to the marketplace of ideas, which, in turn, fuels the marketplace for things like contraception and fast food.

Are you really demanding that we shut down the marketplace of ideas? Considering that no one, save yourself, has discussed government intervention into this matter, but everyone seems quite keen to discuss the wisdom of various choices, I can only conclude that your attitude is: "It's a choice, so it's good, so take any criticism you may have of that choice and shove it." Not cool.

Either that, or you rely on the straw man of assuming that I'm telling people what to do. Not cool, either.
7.27.2008 2:59am
M. Simon (mail) (www):
Oren,

It is the local market not the "average" market that counts.

BTW the flapper era was a result of a significant loss of marriage age men in the war. More so even in Europe. (see Wiemar Republic Culture or the "Tropics" of Henry Miller) I believe this effect is mentioned in the Bible (but I'm not sure where).

The imbalance need not be large. About 5% seems to be enough to make the change.

We have a significant portion of the black male marriage age men in the prison or jail. Thus rap music, out of wedlock births, etc.
7.27.2008 4:57am
DWPittelli (mail) (www):
1) Higher levels of racism in the past cannot be blamed on sexual conservatism, nor lower levels today credited to the sexual revolution, except to the extent you think that pre-1960s racism was caused by the sexual frustrations of the racist people. (No doubt occasionally a factor, but come on.) Neither Eberstadt nor the Catholic Church have claimed that the sexual revolution worsened every parameter of society -- just certain parameters which are more closely related to sex than is racism. Sexual conservatism was certainly less responsible for race-hatred than its sexual opposite is now responsible for the problem of black single-motherhood, properly decried by Daniel Patrick Moynihan when it was one third as widespread as now.

2) Reflecting that the sexual revolution had costs as well as benefits does not necessarily mean that one would wish to reverse said revolution, let alone demand that government outlaw contraception.

3) Yes, people cheated and used prostitutes before 1960. However, greatly increased rates of sexually transmitted diseases tend to indicate that a lot more people are having non-monogamous sex now than in the 1920s, or probably any other time before the 1960s. The old and then-radical "free love" position was not about hooking up in bars and parties, but about having relatively stable relationships before or without marriage.

4) Rates of pregnancy and childbirth among women who aren't married, about to get married, or even living with or seriously involved with boyfriends, are also way up, "despite" contraception and abortion being far more effective and available now than in 1960. Pointing this out does mean that one opposes contraception, or even abortion.
7.27.2008 9:12am
M. Simon (mail) (www):
There was no sexual revolution.

There was a demographic imbalance.
7.27.2008 9:24am
M. Simon (mail) (www):
Rates of pregnancy and childbirth among women who aren't married, about to get married, or even living with or seriously involved with boyfriends, are also way up, "despite" contraception and abortion being far more effective and available now than in 1960.

Not so much for whites where the demographics are fairly balanced.

Very much so for blacks where the demographics are wildly out of balance.
7.27.2008 9:26am
Sk (mail):
Its been hinted at a few times, but what in the world does

"Increased personal autonomy, freedom, and social and economic opportunities for women are certainly important benefits of access to birth control that most of us will easily recognize."

mean?

"increased personal autonomy"-yes, the pill allowed women to sleep with men without fear of getting pregnant, I suppose. Is that what 'personal autonomy' means?

"freedom"-yes, the pill allowed women to sleep with men without fear of getting pregnant. Is that what 'freedom' means?

"social...opportunities"-yes, the pill allowed women to sleep with more men without fear of getting pregnant. Is that what 'social opportunities' means?

"economic...opportunities"-hmm.This one is tougher. I suppose the pill allowed more women could sleep with more men in a professional relationship (prostitutes, porn stars, etc)? Sleep with their bosses for professional advancement? What?


I have no problem with the sexual revolution that the Pill wrought (as a man, I have enjoyed the fruits of that revolution). I'm simply having a hard time understanding what the freedom, autonomy, and social and 'professional' benefits of the revolution are-other than the ability to have more casual sex (which has its own benefits).

I suspect the sexual revolution and the feminist revolution are simply assumed to be identical (or mutually dependent). I don't think that is the case. I could easily imagine a world where women are allowed to go to law and medical school, and yet the Pill hasn't been invented.

(after all, there are plenty of people out there-women and men-for whom the Pill has little or no meaning: monogamous, sexually inactive, religiously devout, and so on. I presume they have the same 'autonomy, freedom, and social and economic opportunities' as their more libertine brethren...)

Sk
7.27.2008 9:37am
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: All
RE: The Disasters of the Sexual Revolution

I sit on several commissions and boards in my city and county.

I am continually hearing of the disasters wrought by the sexual revolution. They come in two general areas:

[1] Single Parent 'Families'; a oxymoron if ever I heard one.
[2] Teenage Girl Pregnancies; which lead to item #1.

Departments, e.g., health, school boards, NGOs are ALL trying to 'solve' the problems, but for some 'strange' reason they seem totally clueless as to their root-cause.

This county is dominated by Democrats.

I find it 'funny'—not of the ha ha persuasion—that these people cannot connect the proverbial dots. It's a classic example of cognitive dissonance in their philosophy....

We have to allow children to have all the sex they want. But what do we do about all the children born of children?

I'd call it 'ignorance', but they know where children come from. So it more resembles the Emperor's New Clothes; in more ways than one.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[An intellectual is a person who has discovered something more interesting than sex. -- Aldous Huxley]
7.27.2008 10:50am
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
P.S. The Instapundit, in his item that lead me here, remarks...

A sexual counterrevolution would, of course, do its own share of damage, something proponents should consider, but usually don't. -- Glenn Reynolds

I asked him what forms of damage there would be. He has not made follow-up comment as to what those might be; as of this writing.
7.27.2008 11:32am
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
P.P.S. Maybe he's passed the question on to the Instawife....
7.27.2008 11:38am
dpt (mail):
"3. Has there been a lessening of respect for women by men? Just look back at no. 1 above and ask yourself if men are really disrespecting women more today than decades ago. "

With the growth availability of pornography, the global sex trade, and abortion (seems that many women are, if not coerced into one, are talked into by the man in their life) the question of lessening respect for women is a valid one to analysis and judge.

Several decades before Humanae Vitae, advocates of birth control stated that access to conception would strengthen marriages, end prostitution, and also result in more respect for women. The first two are obviously false predictions, and the latter one, considering the number of women and their children living without the support of a man, is arguably false too.
7.27.2008 11:40am
Lisa (mail):
I think that many of you are ceding too much to the anti-contraceptive position by allowing the argument to focus on the unmarried. The best and earliest arguments for contraception focused on married women--and without it, married women sure aren't going to be having any sort of career at all. My Catholic great-grandmother has 13 children, for instance, and no time for anything else.
7.27.2008 11:45am
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: Lisa
RE: Thanks for the Memory

"The best and earliest arguments for contraception focused on married women...." -- Lisa

My Mother died screaming in my Father's arms one night because of a massive cerebral vascular 'accident'. It turned out, her birth-control pills where a major contributing factor to her death. Another factor was her Scandinavian ancestry.

Likewise, a member of my Friday Morning Mens' Bible Study group reports that his 33-year old daughter has similar ancestry and takes the pill and just had a stroke.

Hope that helps.

Regards,

Chuck
[We're talking deadly unintended consequences here.]
7.27.2008 11:52am
theobromophile (www):
M. Simon: as of 2000, 27% of births to whites were out-of-wedlock, which is up from about 10% in 1980 and 5% in 1960. Even non-Hispanic whites are up to about 22% of births out of wedlock.

For anyone interested, the CDC listed out-of-wedlock births, from 1940 to 2000, by race, here.
7.27.2008 11:52am
theobromophile (www):
Lisa,

Catholics believe that Natural Family Planning (NFP) is a Biblically permissible way to control reproduction. It is different from the rhythm method, which is more of a semi-educated, mostly uneducated, guess as to when a woman is fertile. The symptothermal method of NFP has a very low failure rate - somewhere in the 98% region, IIRC, when used consistently and correctly.

Couples who practise NFP have a much lower divorce rate (I've seen anywhere from 0.2% to 8%, but am inclined to believe the higher number) than their contraceptive-using peers.

So my question: is artificial birth control really a great thing for married women?
7.27.2008 12:08pm
U.Va. 3L:
Couples who practise NFP have a much lower divorce rate (I've seen anywhere from 0.2% to 8%, but am inclined to believe the higher number) than their contraceptive-using peers.


I'd be interested in knowing what, if anything, is controlled for in those statistics. I would assume, for example, that couples using NFP are more likely to be religious, and I would also assume that couples who are more likely to be religious are more likely not to get divorced. (I could be entirely wrong, but that was my first thought.)
7.27.2008 12:30pm
trad and anon:
I am continually hearing of the disasters wrought by the sexual revolution. They come in two general areas:

[1] Single Parent 'Families'; a oxymoron if ever I heard one.
[2] Teenage Girl Pregnancies; which lead to item #1.
Actually, I think what leads to item #1 tends to have more to do with Dad, who tends not to be the single parent.
7.27.2008 1:40pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: trad and anon
RE: As I Was Saying

"I think what leads to item #1 tends to have more to do with Dad, who tends not to be the single parent." -- trad and anon

It's STILL a single-parent trying to do what historically two have done. And not doing a good job of it. The result is a dysfunctional child-cum-adult who hasn't seen how it is done right. And that only compounds the problem.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[You know you were a good parent if your grand-children turn out right.]

P.S. And if they don't....well....it's too late.....
7.27.2008 1:51pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
P.P.S. If you want to 'cast blame'.....EVERYBODY is pretty much to blame.....
7.27.2008 1:52pm
Andy Freeman (mail):
> none of the feminist writers would agree with Eberstat's assumptions that there has been some sort of cultural decline in how men treat women.

Why should we care more about what they think that their data says than what their data actually says?

The person who collects some data does not get the final word on its meaning. They only get the first word and that word is unprivileged.
7.27.2008 2:11pm
frankcross (mail):
theo, I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm actually responding to the original post. The post implied that a scientific innovation was a bad thing. I'm saying that is as contrary to libertarian principles as saying that a government denial of choice is a bad thing. There's nothing wrong with arguing for educated choice in the use of a new innovation, but I'm questioning the challenge to the innovation itself.
7.27.2008 2:11pm
byomtov (mail):
The symptothermal method of NFP has a very low failure rate - somewhere in the 98% region, IIRC, when used consistently and correctly.

What does this mean? That it fails 98% of the time?

I'm guessing you mean there's only a 2% chance of conception. But that's pretty high, actually.

So my question: is artificial birth control really a great thing for married women?

Well, an awful lot of them use it, and you have shown no harm, so it seems like the answer is a clear "Yes."
7.27.2008 2:16pm
Matteo (mail):
Of course, Humanae Vitae was kind of making the assumption that the goal is to get to Heaven. If that's not your goal, then the outcome of the sexual revolution is bound to look a bit rosier.
7.27.2008 2:18pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: Matteo
RE: Only....

"....the outcome of the sexual revolution is bound to look a bit rosier." -- Matteo

....for the short-sighted. There's a LOT of human misery out there for single-parents and the like. But, hey, if you don't care about misery, unless its YOURS, I guess you can live with it. But that makes you what kind of human being?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill]
7.27.2008 2:28pm
Oren:
There's a LOT of human misery out there for single-parents and the like. But, hey, if you don't care about misery, unless its YOURS, I guess you can live with it. But that makes you what kind of human being?
I don't care about misery that people bring upon themselves by their own free choices. God granted us the sense to make our own decisions in life, and we should live with the consequences. What I will not abide is one human making choices for another about what they can and cannot do with their lives.

PS. A blog post is not an email, you don't have to sign your posts -- authorship is listed at the top.
7.27.2008 2:54pm
Oren:
I should amend that post, I do feel sorry for people that cause themselves to be miserable by their own choices but, ultimately, free human beings must be allowed to make those choices even if they consistently **** it up.
7.27.2008 2:58pm
Oren:
I'm simply having a hard time understanding what the freedom, autonomy, and social and 'professional' benefits of the revolution are-other than the ability to have more casual sex (which has its own benefits).
You aren't trying very hard. Allowing women to have sexual relations without the risk of pregnancy (before she wants one) is, itself, a huge increase in freedom and autonomy. Being saddled with unwanted children is the ultimate barrier to being a full member of society.
7.27.2008 3:02pm
Oren:
Higher levels of racism in the past cannot be blamed on sexual conservatism, nor lower levels today credited to the sexual revolution, except to the extent you think that pre-1960s racism was caused by the sexual frustrations of the racist people. (No doubt occasionally a factor, but come on.)
If you don't see a common ideological thread in the parallel movements to secure full citizenship across genders and across races then I really don't know what to say. Are you seriously implying that the Feminist movement* and the Civil Rights movements were entirely unconnected?

*The historical version concerned with equality of opportunity, not the modern versions that have, err, strayed, from that vision.
7.27.2008 3:18pm
Sk (mail):
Oren-
Your answer is a non-answer. My question: what benefits, other than consequence-free casual sex, did the Pill bring? Your answer: consequence-free casual sex.

You need to try harder yourself.

Sk
7.27.2008 3:23pm
byomtov (mail):
My question: what benefits, other than consequence-free casual sex, did the Pill bring? Your answer: consequence-free casual sex.

Non-casual sex without risk of unwanted children?
7.27.2008 3:27pm
GWU Law '08:

SK says: My question: what benefits, other than consequence-free casual sex, did the Pill bring?

SK: You must be a man.

I am a 27 year old woman. I do not have casual sex. I have it in committed relationships only. The same is true for most of my female friends of the same age, many of whom are married, engaged, or cohabitating with one person. We are all on the Pill. We do not have casual sex. What we do have is the freedom to have sex and pursue our other ambitions. Prior to the Pill, our options would have been to (1) remain celibate until we had completed college, graduate school, and a significant portion of our careers or (2) have sex, get pregnant, and likely forego those things, which are extremely difficult if not impossible to do while you are pregnant or a mother.

I do not have consequence-free, casual sex because I am on the Pill. But I do have a J.D. in no small part because I am on the Pill.
7.27.2008 3:36pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
(after all, there are plenty of people out there-women and men-for whom the Pill has little or no meaning: monogamous, sexually inactive, religiously devout, and so on. I presume they have the same 'autonomy, freedom, and social and economic opportunities' as their more libertine brethren...)
Well, no. The Pill has plenty of meaning for all but the sexually inactive. (It actually has meaning for them, but only indirectly.) You do understand that monogamous people have sex too, right? And that the Pill enables them to do so without getting pregnant, right? And that pregnancy changes one's social and economic life, right?

Without making a statement as to whether it's good or bad to do so, the Pill enables women -- all women, whether married or not -- to easily postpone pregnancy. This has a tremendous impact on them.

Yes, it enables an increase in "casual sex." It also enables an increase in non-casual sex.
7.27.2008 3:48pm
Oren:

Oren-
Your answer is a non-answer. My question: what benefits, other than consequence-free casual sex, did the Pill bring? Your answer: consequence-free casual sex.

You need to try harder yourself.
You pretend like control of reproduction is an end of itself when it is merely the means by which women can chose to fulfill their ends. Without the ability to chose whether to get pregnant, getting an education or having a career are much less viable options.

On a basic and intuitive level, the pill gives women more choices. More choices invariably leads to high utility.
7.27.2008 3:55pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: Oren
RE: I Doooon't Caaare! I Don't Care!

"I don't care about misery that people bring upon themselves by their own free choices." -- Oren

That sounds like a miserable attitude to go through life with. I guess you don't care much for the misery people who live in New Orleans experienced from Katrina. After all, they chose to live there. Or the people in Mississippi, next door. Or what's going to happen to all those people in LA and SanFran when the BIG ONE hits them. Or the people in Oklahoma and Kansas hit by tornadoes.

Also, I don't recall you being a Christian; based on previous engagements we've had here. But here you are saying, "God granted us the sense to make our own decisions in life, and we should live with the consequences."

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it. -- Baker's Law]

P.S. And with Oren's attitude, it's not surprising.
7.27.2008 4:33pm
loki13 (mail):
TO: Chuck Pelto

RE: Self-Parody

I am sure you had a (perhaps distant) relative die during childbirth. Therefore, by the logic of your previous anecdote, we should make sure there are no more pregnancies, since they cause pain, and death, and people can't handle that choice. After all, pregnancy is just like Katrina.

Regards,

Loki (Low Key)
[Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.]
7.27.2008 4:59pm
Oren:
The alternative, interposing myself in the decisions of others, is considerably worse than allowing them to make their own choices. To err is tragic, perhaps, but not to be allowed to err is worse still.

God did not intend for man to lord over his fellow man (and one need not be a Christian to believe this) but rather gave each man faculty to make his own judgment even knowing that man's imperfection would mean that his judgment is frequently in error.
7.27.2008 5:03pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: Oren
RE: Try....

"The alternative, interposing myself in the decisions of others, is considerably worse than allowing them to make their own choices." -- Oren

...to think OUT-OF-THE-BOX

You think it's either let them suffer or dictate to them how they should live.

You are oh so horribly wrong. And even Progressives will tell you as much. There IS such a thing as 'education'. I see the Public Health Department attempting to 'educate' people ALL THE BLOODY TIME. And you think we have to dictate to them?

Try not be so narrow-minded. Or are you REALLY 'projecting' here?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[He was so narrow-minded, he could see through a key-hole with both eyes.]
7.27.2008 5:21pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
P.S. I notice that you have not answered my question regarding the nature of your 'Faith'. Are you a Christian?
7.27.2008 5:22pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
You are oh so horribly wrong. And even Progressives will tell you as much. There IS such a thing as 'education'. I see the Public Health Department attempting to 'educate' people ALL THE BLOODY TIME. And you think we have to dictate to them?
Unfortunately, history demonstrates that self-described Progressives and conservatives alike always support "education" -- as long as it works. And then when it doesn't, they get frustrated and move on to coercion. Best for them to just mind their own business to start with.
7.27.2008 5:27pm
theobromophile (www):
I'm guessing you mean there's only a 2% chance of conception. But that's pretty high, actually.

Yes, a 2% chance of conception - over the course of a year. That's not "high" unless you want to compare it to sterilisation.

While the Pill allows women to have consequence-free sex, it also gives us little grounds upon which to not have sex. There are legions of men who expect their girlfriends to go on the Pill, or expect women to go on the Pill, so they can have sex whenever they want it, wherever they want it, and with whomever they want it.

I think that we are forgetting that childbearing and childbirth have effects upon men, too. The negative effects are pretty straightforward: responsibility, both emotional and financial. The positive effects, however, should not be ignored. I've heard a lot of men say that the day their first child was born was one of the most amazing things in their lives - they could not believe that they had been a part of that, had contributed to that, and the act that created their own child was sex. (As for the last part: there is a difference between knowing something intellectually and knowing something emotionally.) It is not a coincidence that the term "miracle" is used so often to describe childbirth.

Personally, I don't think that we do men or women any favours by ignoring this reality. The body, mind, and soul are a unit, and we're only starting to know how each affects the other. Medically, we understand that stress - mere worry - can change the condition of the heart and lead to premature death. We recognise that changes to the body (the food we eat, exercise we get, time spent in the sun) have very real effects upon the psyche. The human body is an incredible machine, fine-tuned over aeons of evolution; it's remarkably presumptuous to assume that we can shut down one system and not have it effect both the body and the mind - especially sex, which affects people more deeply than almost anything else.
7.27.2008 5:35pm
Contentious:
byomtov: A 2% failure rate on the Pill does NOT mean that if you're on BCP and you have intercourse 100 times you will have 2 children. It means that if 100 women are on BCP and all of them have sex as often as they want, 2 of them will have children. It's not perfect, agreed, but a much lower failure rate than other methods, including condoms and "pull-out" techniques.

Chuck P: It is true that BCP, like any medicine, can have untoward side-effects, including increased risk of blood clots leading to stroke. Please keep in mind that childbirth itself can have untoward medical side effects. Fewer women die on the Pill than die in childbirth, though the number dying in childbirth has dramatically decreased in the last century.

-------

BTW, I think this entire post has gone off topic. Completely ignoring the specific example Todd Z gave, I think it would be WONDERFUL if social scientists and esp. politicians actually looked routinely at laws and regulations and compared their results to the predicted results described when they were debated. It would add a little humility to the idea of solving the world's problems by passing more laws and regulations (assuming, without evidence, that politicians actually desire to solve social problems).
7.27.2008 5:43pm
Oren:
You are oh so horribly wrong. And even Progressives will tell you as much. There IS such a thing as 'education'. I see the Public Health Department attempting to 'educate' people ALL THE BLOODY TIME. And you think we have to dictate to them?
So long as coercion is absolutely off the table, I have no qualms with any such nonsense. Attempts to convince people by force of reason are part and parcel of a functioning discourse.

P.S. I notice that you have not answered my question regarding the nature of your 'Faith'. Are you a Christian?

The question depends on what you think it means to be a Christian. There is quite a bit of disagreement on that question and so it would be foolish to answer it without knowing what exactly you mean.

At any rate, it's not a topic that particularly interests me. Religions are to be studied, not believed -- the heart of divinity is inquiry, not dogma.

While the Pill allows women to have consequence-free sex, it also gives us little grounds upon which to not have sex.
Wait a second . . women have to give a REASON for not having sex? Could you kindly inform my girlfriend of this wonderful new development, she's pretty insistent that she can chose whether or not she has sex without any justification whatsoever.

The positive effects, however, should not be ignored. I've heard a lot of men say that the day their first child was born was one of the most amazing things in their lives - they could not believe that they had been a part of that, had contributed to that, and the act that created their own child was sex.
Absolutely agreed. The wonderfulness of parenthood, however, does mean that it should be thrust upon the unwilling or unready.

it's remarkably presumptuous to assume that we can shut down one system and not have it effect both the body and the mind - especially sex, which affects people more deeply than almost anything else.
It seems similarly presumptuous to declare, for another person, what will affect them positively or negatively.
7.27.2008 6:25pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: David M. Nieporent
RE: Dang It!

"Unfortunately, history demonstrates that self-described Progressives and conservatives alike always support "education" -- as long as it works. And then when it doesn't, they get frustrated and move on to coercion." -- David M. Nieporent

You spoiled one of my follow-up args.

Oh well....

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Play the 'deep' game.]
7.27.2008 6:30pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
P.S. I was sort of hinting at it with that business about 'projection' in that post.
7.27.2008 6:30pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: Oren
RE: Identified

"The question depends on what you think it means to be a Christian." -- Oren

A REAL christian would have unabashedly stated it. The false ones equivocate.

Thanks for the information. I now know the nature of the audience I find in you.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.]
7.27.2008 6:32pm
dpt (mail):
"Catholics believe that Natural Family Planning (NFP) is a Biblically permissible way to control reproduction..."

There are Planned Parenthood clinics that instruction women on Natural Family Planning too, though the exact phrase, for obvious reasons, is not used. It is an empowering method for women and men, and free of chemicals, hormones, etc.
7.27.2008 6:34pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
P.S. For your edification, I would recommend your future args about what YOU think is in that Old Book should be couched in terms like....Isn't it written....?

Do try to remember to cite book/chapter/verse in such.

P.P.S. If you do, I'll be impressed that you are one of the few people who have taken Sun Tzu's axiom of war to heart.

[Know your enemy and know yourself and you shall never be defeated. -- Sun Tzu, The Art of War]
7.27.2008 6:36pm
byomtov (mail):
byomtov: A 2% failure rate on the Pill does NOT mean that if you're on BCP and you have intercourse 100 times you will have 2 children. It means that if 100 women are on BCP and all of them have sex as often as they want, 2 of them will have children. It's not perfect, agreed, but a much lower failure rate than other methods, including condoms and "pull-out" techniques.

What did I say to deserve this lecture? I was asking theo to clarify her statement about the family planning method she advocates, not the birth control pill.

And by the way, shouldn't you state a time period?
7.27.2008 6:46pm
Sk (mail):
Without the Pill: women (and men) cannot have sex (casual or otherwise) without additional worry about the consequences (i.e. having a child).

With the Pill: women (and men) can have sex (casual or otherwise) without additional worry about the consequences (i.e. having a child).

In either case, women can go to law school.

ergo, the Pill doesn't allow women to go to law school (or pursue careers, etc etc). It allows women to have sex and worry less about the consequences.

I think its great. I like sex with women, and I like not worrying about the consequences, too. But the Pill doesn't allow women to go to law school.

Sk
7.27.2008 6:49pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: All
RE: Typical Progressive Args

I noticed that Oren, in his reply to several posts, FAILED to respond to the argument regarding Self-Inflicted Misery, vis-a-vis living in New Orleans for Katrina.

I'll take it his failure to reply is recognition of the truth of the argument I put forward.

[Note: In debate, failure to rebut is considered acquiescence.]

RE: An Additional Arg

In his, and someone else's arg, they don't care about other peoples' misery. And I suspect that is VERY accurate; heartless people that some people are. [Note: According to some psychology reports, 1 person in 5 is amoral. These people may be part of that set.]

Such people will not recognize misery until it smacks them in the face, like a fist.

However, allow me to point out that people in misery tend to act in a manner that increases misery in the society. This can either be a drain on resources; think why YOU have to pay $250+ for a quart of physiological saline in a hospital while the OD'd homeless person pays NOTHING. [Note: If the homeless aren't 'miserable', who is?]

But people like Oren and whoeverelseitwas don't recognize the collateral damage done by their heartless nature.

Then again, if some homeless drug-user breaks into their house and robs and possible injures or kills them, they might....just MIGHT recognize there is a problem.

The same applies to all kinds of people suffering in various different circumstances. It's like discarding a pebble into a still pool of water....the ripples expand to affect all of the pool....and the inhabitants.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[No man is an island.]
7.27.2008 6:56pm
byomtov (mail):
Yes, a 2% chance of conception - over the course of a year. That's not "high" unless you want to compare it to sterilisation.

That's assuming they don't make any mistakes following a fairly complex process

Regardless of how it compares, I don't see at all why it would matter what method of birth control a couple uses. If they want to avoid a pregnancy what difference does it make whether they use NFP or birth control pills or a condom or something else?
7.27.2008 6:58pm
Angus:

considering the number of women and their children living without the support of a man

Men can live fine on their own, but women can't make it without a male protector and provider? Now THAT is an old time, pre-birth control, respectful attitude towards women!
7.27.2008 7:50pm
Angus:

I noticed that Oren, in his reply to several posts, FAILED to respond to the argument regarding Self-Inflicted Misery, vis-a-vis living in New Orleans for Katrina.

Living in New Orleans prior to Katrina was in its own way self-inflicted misery. Katrina hitting was not by choice of residents, so that misery was externally inflicted.

There is also a huge difference between: 1) being sympathetic to those in misery, whether through their own fault or not, and 2) seeking to control and dominate those in misery so as to force them to make what you believe are the "right" choices in the future.
7.27.2008 7:54pm
Oren:
"The question depends on what you think it means to be a Christian." -- Oren

A REAL christian would have unabashedly stated it. The false ones equivocate.
Fred Phelps can shout at the top of lungs that he a christian (and quite often avails himself of that prerogative) but the message that he conveys is decidedly unchristian. Am I to assess his "christian-ness" by his subjective assertions or by some objective standard? If the former, then it's a meaningless assertion. If the latter then who exactly gets to promulgate the standards?

I prefer to avoid this dilemma by staying away from such childish conceptions of identity and focus instead on matter more substantive than applying labels to God's children.
7.27.2008 7:59pm
Oren:
With the Pill: women (and men) can have sex (casual or otherwise) without additional worry about the consequences (i.e. having a child).

In either case, women can go to law school.
But in the latter case, she can chose to go to law school without taking a vow of celibacy. That is to say, the pill has opened up a new choice for her: go to law school without giving up having sex. More choices always begets and increase in utility.
7.27.2008 8:19pm
The Ace (mail):
had the architects of the Great Society welfare programs known the unintended consequences that would flow from welfare reform, would they have still supported it?

Surely you jest.

These people are dyed in the wool socialists and completely ignore any consequences of such policies. Which is why they cage the debate in terms of "you're against poor people."
7.27.2008 8:20pm
Oren:

I think its great. I like sex with women, and I like not worrying about the consequences, too. But the Pill doesn't allow women to go to law school.
You are right, it doesn't allow women to go to law school -- it allows the vast majority of women that find celibacy unacceptably dull to go to law school.
7.27.2008 8:21pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: All
RE: As I Was Saying...

"Fred Phelps can shout at the top of lungs that he a christian (and quite often avails himself of that prerogative) but the message that he conveys is decidedly unchristian....

I prefer to avoid this dilemma by staying away from such childish conceptions of identity and focus instead on matter more substantive than applying labels to God's children." -- Oren

....equivocation and obfuscation are the 'art' of non-christians.

I rest my case.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Sin has many tools, but a lie is the handle which fits them all.]
7.27.2008 8:22pm
The Ace (mail):
Anyone who can claim that there has been a lessening of respect for women by men is not worth being taken seriously.

Why, because you say so?

I especially enjoyed all the facts and evidence that came along with this obscene statement.
7.27.2008 8:22pm
Oren:
Then again, if some homeless drug-user breaks into their house and robs and possible injures or kills them, they might....just MIGHT recognize there is a problem.
A homeless drug-user breaking into my house is liable to receive either buckshot or a tuna sandwich. The choice of which one depends entirely on his ability to convey in a short time-frame that he is not a threat.

There is also a huge difference between: 1) being sympathetic to those in misery, whether through their own fault or not, and 2) seeking to control and dominate those in misery so as to force them to make what you believe are the "right" choices in the future.
I'm just going to quote Angus because his rebuttal is more than sufficient.
7.27.2008 8:23pm
Oren:
....equivocation and obfuscation are the 'art' of non-christians.
And the unequivocal and open promulgation of hatred under the guise of Christianity is what, chopped liver?
7.27.2008 8:28pm
The Ace (mail):
Prior to the Pill, our options would have been to (1) remain celibate until we had completed college, graduate school, and a significant portion of our careers or (2) have sex, get pregnant,

Um, I guess they didn't teach you in law school about condoms? Or when they were invented (Hint: way, way before "the pill)?

The delusions taking place on this topic are hysterical.
7.27.2008 8:34pm
The Ace (mail):
That is to say, the pill has opened up a new choice for her: go to law school without giving up having sex.

Hilarious.

Question: in the history of the world, which came first, the condom or law schools?
7.27.2008 8:36pm
The Ace (mail):

I prefer to avoid this dilemma by staying away from such childish conceptions of identity and focus instead on matter more substantive than applying labels to God's children.


Translation:
You are an intellectual coward.

On top of the fact you said:
but the message that he conveys is decidedly unchristian.

Er, you just applied a label.
7.27.2008 8:38pm
The Ace (mail):
But I do have a J.D. in no small part because I am on the Pill.

Good grief, you make it sound like sex is a condition you wake up with and/or can't avoid.

The state of America is perilous for sure.
7.27.2008 8:44pm
Oren:
Good grief, you make it sound like sex is a condition you wake up with and/or can't avoid.
Yeah, it's almost like we think it's a natural part of being a mammal.

Er, you just applied a label.
There is a distinction between what I consider meaningless labels of identity (e.g. "X is a Christian") and evaluating whether specific acts are concordant with Christian values (e.g. "It is unchristian to preach hatred towards your fellow man"). The former, I argue, has no meaning in either the subjective or objective sense* but nothing of the sort is true about the latter.

*Incidentally, Chuck, you didn't answer that question -- when assessing whether person X is a Christian, do I rely on their subjective statement or do I apply some objective criteria. If the latter, which criteria and in what weights?
7.27.2008 8:55pm
Randy R. (mail):
Chuck: "We have to allow children to have all the sex they want. But what do we do about all the children born of children? "

I can't believe no know brought up the obvious -- If you don't want the misery of unwanted pregnancies, then provide more contraception.

Sure, you can scream and cry all you want that people shouldn't have sex, and many people do. But it hasn't stopped too many people from having sex. So the next best thing is to have sex, but have proper protection too. It not only prevents unwanted pregnancies (and thereby reduces the number of abortions, something we can all agree is a good), but also reduces the number of STDs.

Women should have access to the pill, and men should be using condoms. In this way, we recognize the reality that people have sex, but unburdens them from the risks of having sex.
7.27.2008 8:57pm
Oren:
Actually, The Ace, since you are clearly not an intellectual coward, perhaps you could tell me how to assess whether or not I am (or anyone else is) a Christian.
7.27.2008 8:59pm
Randy R. (mail):
I must say, I'm mightily impressed. 129 messages, and so far no one has blamed gays for any of this.

Hooray!
7.27.2008 8:59pm
Cave Robot (mail):
>Um, I guess they didn't teach you in law school about condoms? Or when they were invented (Hint: way, way before "the pill)?<

Condoms are also contraception. The Catholic Church was against those too.
7.27.2008 9:05pm
The Ace (mail):
Yeah, it's almost like we think it's a natural part of being a mammal.

Um, and then what? It's natural for me to want sex so I can just force a woman to do it, right? I mean, you just implied that in your idiotic response.
So there is no such thing as rape to you, correct?
7.27.2008 9:07pm
The Ace (mail):
Condoms are also contraception. The Catholic Church was against those too.

Huh?
Who was talking about the Catholic Church?
Answer: nobody.

Can you people even read?
7.27.2008 9:09pm
The Ace (mail):
Actually, The Ace, since you are clearly not an intellectual coward, perhaps you could tell me how to assess whether or not I am (or anyone else is) a Christian.

I love this.

Yes, Oren it's some big "mystery" in how to asses whether or not you're a Christian. I mean, I couldn't actually go by the incoherent things you are saying or anything.

Nope.
7.27.2008 9:12pm
byomtov (mail):
Anyone who can claim that there has been a lessening of respect for women by men is not worth being taken seriously.

Why, because you say so?

I especially enjoyed all the facts and evidence that came along with this obscene statement.


No. Not because I say so. Because of common sense.

Tell me, Ace, how much respect a woman's application to medical or law school got in 1958, say.

Tell me, Ace, whether women in the work force got paid as well as men in 1958, or had the same opportunities.

Multiply these examples by a big number. Respect takes many forms.
7.27.2008 9:15pm
The Ace (mail):
129 messages, and so far no one has blamed gays for any of this.

The gays were right there with the bra burners arguing that not only was marriage a horrible institution, "slavery" (they were anti-gay dammit!), but they argued that:



Gay liberation was founded . . . on a 'sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,' and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a 'communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions


Yes, I blame the gays too.
7.27.2008 9:17pm
Oren:
Um, and then what? It's natural for me to want sex so I can just force a woman to do it, right? I mean, you just implied that in your idiotic response.
So there is no such thing as rape to you, correct?
Off one tangent and on another. The point is that women that voluntarily want to have sex and voluntarily want to go to law school ought to be able to do so. And if they voluntarily want to do both at the same time, we should applaud their freely-made choices.
7.27.2008 9:17pm
Oren:
Actually, The Ace, since you are clearly not an intellectual coward, perhaps you could tell me how to assess whether or not I am (or anyone else is) a Christian.

I love this.

Yes, Oren it's some big "mystery" in how to asses whether or not you're a Christian. I mean, I couldn't actually go by the incoherent things you are saying or anything.

Nope.
As an act of charity to the intellectually and theologically crippled like myself, could you please elucidate the process and criteria by which you made this assessment?
7.27.2008 9:18pm
The Ace (mail):
Tell me, Ace, how much respect a woman's application to medical or law school got in 1958, say.

And then what?

Respect takes many forms.

Comical coming from you of all people.

You don't really have a sense of irony, do you?

It's fantastic leftist pansies like you get the warm &fuzzies because women now are going to medical school, but that doesn't mean they are more "respected."
7.27.2008 9:19pm
The Ace (mail):
The point is that women that voluntarily want to have sex and voluntarily want to go to law school ought to be able to do so.

And who argued against this again?

Strawman much?

Again, can you people read? Because nothing that was said had anything to do with what you typed.
7.27.2008 9:20pm
The Ace (mail):
And if they voluntarily want to do both at the same time, we should applaud their freely-made choices.

Aw, isn't that cute.

And idiotic.
7.27.2008 9:22pm
Oren:
It's fantastic leftist pansies like you get the warm &fuzzies because women now are going to medical school, but that doesn't mean they are more "respected."
Surely you jest. A society that closes doors to women cannot really be said to respect them in any meaningful way.
7.27.2008 9:23pm
The Ace (mail):
As an act of charity to the intellectually and theologically crippled like myself, could you please elucidate the process and criteria by which you made this assessment?

You mean other than reading the continued idiocy of your posts?
7.27.2008 9:23pm
The Ace (mail):
A society that closes doors to women cannot really be said to respect them in any meaningful way.

Respect takes many forms
7.27.2008 9:24pm
Oren:
I'm sorry if you don't like free will Ace. Maybe you should have a chat with God and tell him how idiotic it was for him to have created man with the faculty to make his own judgments.
7.27.2008 9:24pm
Oren:
Respect takes many forms
An equal opportunity to be full-fledged members of society is the sine qua non of them all.
7.27.2008 9:25pm
The Ace (mail):
Off one tangent and on another

Illuminating.

Silly girl claimed:
But I do have a J.D. in no small part because I am on the Pill.

Ace replied:
Good grief, you make it sound like sex is a condition you wake up with and/or can't avoid.

You replied:
It's almost like we think it's a natural part of being a mammal


I was not off on a "tangent."

You simply can't respond.
7.27.2008 9:27pm
loki13 (mail):

Ace wrote:

Huh?
Who was talking about the Catholic Church?
Answer: nobody.

Can you people even read?


From the OP:

"In this vein I offer a provocative essay by Mary Eberstadt on birth control and the sexual revolution. She writes about it through the lens of the Papal Encyclical Humanae Vitae . . . ."

Hmmmm... nothing there. Some latin, and uh, papal. That's, like, a test for breast cacer, right? A papal smear? Or something you put on a bagel (a papal shmear?)?

"In the years since Humanae Vitae’s appearance, numerous distinguished Catholic thinkers have argued, using a variety of evidence, that each of these predictions has been borne out by the social facts."

Let's see... Catholic thinkers must be one of them highfalutin' terms, like "cafeteria catholic" (y'know, the people that only that pick and choose the things they like at Country Time Buffet instead of loading up on bread) that has nothing to with religion.

Yeah, who the heck was talking about Catholicism and birth control anyway?

(yes, using the comments would be too easy)
7.27.2008 9:29pm
The Ace (mail):
I'm sorry if you don't like free will Ace. Maybe you should have a chat with God and tell him how idiotic it was for him to have created man with the faculty to make his own judgments.

Um, this again, has nothing to do with what I said. Further, I need not "applaud" someone for making choices. That is a silly sentiment held by silly people.

However, since we are having chats with God, how do you think he would feel about premarital sex?

Goodness, give up, clown. Your incoherence is stunning.
7.27.2008 9:29pm
The Ace (mail):
Yeah, who the heck was talking about Catholicism and birth control anyway?

Not the poster I replied to.

Get it?

Yet?

Or are you going to be stupid all night?
7.27.2008 9:30pm
The Ace (mail):
An equal opportunity to be full-fledged members of society is the sine qua non of them all.

So anyone that doesn't go to medical school is not a full fledged member of society?

Oh, don't worry, your incoherent bluster marches on.

By the way, strawman much? Because I didn't really say anything about this.

Can
You
Read?
7.27.2008 9:32pm
loki13 (mail):
Naw,

I don't need to be. You're taking care of it for me.

Comedy: Any of DB's posts.

High Comedy: Watching you The Ace accuse others of illiteracy.
7.27.2008 9:33pm
Cave Robot (mail):
theobromophile, >The human body is an incredible machine, fine-tuned over aeons of evolution; it's remarkably presumptuous to assume that we can shut down one system and not have it effect both the body and the mind - especially sex, which affects people more deeply than almost anything else.<

I don't think anybody's arguing about that, the question is whether the impact is beneficial or not.

The previous most common form of regulating the number of children in the family was infanticide. This was in addition to the fact that most babies died in infancy from disease, and many women died in labor.

If we were to stop using contraception, but kept all the babies born alive and also prevented infanticide (if we could -- before contraception, governments were notably ineffective in this), what would be the result? It seems unlikely that encouraging celibacy or restraint would be very effective, since it never has been before.

Most of our grandparents went through a generation like this -- twelve to fourteen surviving children. And in the Third World, many are going through this demographic transition right now. But this was not the norm through most of human history, where women had to give birth to 14 kids to have 2 survive.

So, the question, quite aside from feminism and all that, is whether we want to have a society where (a) you have to watch twelve of your 14 kids die, (b) you have to support a family of sixteen, or (c) you use technology to regulate conception so you have a reasonable number of kids.

No matter what the Pope says, most people are choosing (c). They have been choosing (c) for a century and a half, in every nation, as fast as they can get to (c). Maybe they know something the Pope doesn't.
7.27.2008 9:34pm
Oren:
However, since we are having chats with God, how do you think he would feel about premarital sex?
God loves me and wants me to be happy. If he hadn't intended for me to have and enjoy sex, he would not have arranged my anatomy in the way that he did.
7.27.2008 9:34pm
The Ace (mail):
High Comedy: Watching you The Ace accuse others of illiteracy.

Highest comedy: watching you be the a-hole of the entire thread.

Why don't you jump in with another irrelevant point or silly bromide. You're long over due.
7.27.2008 9:35pm
The Ace (mail):
God loves me and wants me to be happy. If he hadn't intended for me to have and enjoy sex, he would not have arranged my anatomy in the way that he did.

Hilarious.

Yes, idiot, God is just a little friend who did everything he could for you.

In fact, you are the center of the universe!

Surreal.
7.27.2008 9:37pm
Oren:

Silly girl claimed:
But I do have a J.D. in no small part because I am on the Pill.

Ace replied:
Good grief, you make it sound like sex is a condition you wake up with and/or can't avoid.

You replied:
It's almost like we think it's a natural part of being a mammal

The fact remains that sex is a natural part of being a human being that no person should be forced to do without to satisfy your desire to control their life.
7.27.2008 9:37pm
Oren:

An equal opportunity to be full-fledged members of society is the sine qua non of them all.

So anyone that doesn't go to medical school is not a full fledged member of society?

Perhaps I should have put the emphasis on in the first place.
7.27.2008 9:38pm
The Ace (mail):
God loves me and wants me to be happy. If he hadn't intended for me to have and enjoy sex, he would not have arranged my anatomy in the way that he did.

Note you didn't answer the question.

Why do you think that is?

As a point of fact, your anatomy is the way it is to procreate.

Finally,
As an act of charity to the intellectually and theologically crippled like myself, could you please elucidate the process and criteria by which you made this assessment?

Is total parody.
7.27.2008 9:39pm
The Ace (mail):
The fact remains that sex is a natural part of being a human being that no person should be forced to do without

So there is no such thing as rape, right?
7.27.2008 9:40pm
Oren:
As a point of fact, your anatomy is the way it is to procreate.
Procreation does not require large numbers of highly sensitive nerve-endings on the tip of the penis. Either God made an absurd blunder by putting those nerves there or else he intended for us to feel pleasurable stimulation during coitus.
7.27.2008 9:42pm
The Ace (mail):
God loves me and wants me to be happy. If he hadn't intended for me to have and enjoy sex, he would not have arranged my anatomy in the way that he did.

Um, not so much;



But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people.

--Ephesians 5:3


Now go ahead and tell me what a great Christian you are by ignoring the bible.
7.27.2008 9:43pm
loki13 (mail):
You've now reached "Charlton Heston playing a Mexican federale in Touch of Evil" level of hilarity.

Here's the difference; I have no anger. When the crazies come out, I usually duck and cover, because I have less tolerance than kind-hearted souls like Oren, and I find that posts like yours make my points far more effectively than I ever could (even if you wrote something I agreed with, who would want to agree with someone who clearly wants to argue forever). Sometimes I can't resist, like when a post is about a Papal Encyclical, and someone rudely accuses another of not being able to read for mentioning Catholicism.

Note for the future- if you're making comments like "fantastic leftist pansies like you" and "your incoherent bluster marches on" and "strawman much" (arguing about arguing... FUN!), you're probably not as cool as you think you are.

I'm out of here. Troll away, have fun, and be in bed when your mom tells you!
7.27.2008 9:43pm
Oren:
Note you didn't answer the question [about sex]
I thought it was pretty clear -- if God did not intend for me to pursue sexual relations, he would not have designed my mind the way he did.

It's a fairly absurd Creator that designs his subjects in a way completely antithetical to his goals for their lives.
7.27.2008 9:45pm
The Ace (mail):
Either God made an absurd blunder by putting those nerves there or else he intended for us to feel pleasurable stimulation during coitus.

Um, not so much;


Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
--Hebrews 13:4,


But remember, it's all about you! God is just like a little buddy in the sky. You can do no wrong! He's just like a cooler version of Santa Clause or something!
7.27.2008 9:46pm
theobromophile (www):
But in the latter case, she can chose to go to law school without taking a vow of celibacy. That is to say, the pill has opened up a new choice for her: go to law school without giving up having sex. More choices always begets and increase in utility.

No one has yet to address my previous statement: why not change our educational system in a way that makes it easier for pregnant and parenting students to attend graduate school?

Again, most women want marriage and children. It's a lot easier to have kids when you're younger, fertile, more energetic, and less prone to having kids with genetic abnormalities. If our real aim is to help women get all they can out of life, why not make graduate schools better, friendlier places for pregnant and parenting students?
7.27.2008 9:47pm
Oren:

But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people.

-Ephesians 5:3


I must have missed the part where Jesus appointed you to make a list of what constitutes 'sexual immorality'. On my list, consensual sexual relations between caring adults is surprisingly absent.

Plus, we've been over this, I'm not a Christian.
7.27.2008 9:48pm
The Ace (mail):
if God did not intend for me to pursue sexual relations, he would not have designed my mind the way he did.

So you have no free will then?


It's a fairly absurd Creator that designs his subjects in a way completely antithetical to his goals for their lives.

Considering you are wholly ignorant of said goals this is meaningless bluster.

But remember, it's all about you! God is just like a little buddy in the sky!

In fact, he has to explain himself to you! If you can't understand why he did something, well dammit, he's wrong and you're right!
7.27.2008 9:49pm
The Ace (mail):
On my list, consensual sexual relations between caring adults is surprisingly absent.

But remember, it's all about you! God is just like a little buddy in the sky!
7.27.2008 9:50pm
theobromophile (www):
Cave Robot,

But this was not the norm through most of human history, where women had to give birth to 14 kids to have 2 survive.

Are you seriously suggesting that the infant morality rate was 85%?

Even if those who did not die before the age of 5 lived until they were 80, that would result in a life expectancy of about 15 years.
7.27.2008 9:51pm
The Ace (mail):
I must have missed the part where Jesus appointed you to make a list of what constitutes 'sexual immorality'.

Um, I didn't make the list. God did and in fact any sex outside of marriage is immoral and the bible is very clear on this.

You can talk about your irrelevant moral code all you want.
But it's still irrelevant.
7.27.2008 9:51pm
Oren:
No one has yet to address my previous statement: why not change our educational system in a way that makes it easier for pregnant and parenting students to attend graduate school?
We're working on a 30-hour day as we speak, but applying that sort of torque to the earth will require more rocket fuel than we have.

Until then, the time commitments involved in parenting a newborn (combined with a total lack of sleep) make graduate school a non-starter. On some level, we have to admit that some of life's goals are simply incompatible with one another -- if you want an advanced degree and children, you'll have to do them sequentially.
7.27.2008 9:51pm
Oren:

Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
--Hebrews 13:4,

Absolutely, I have no love for the adulterer or the sexually immoral. As I said before, however, I don't consider consensual sexual relations between adults to be immoral in the first place.
7.27.2008 9:52pm
The Ace (mail):
Sometimes I can't resist, like when a post is about a Papal Encyclical, and someone rudely accuses another of not being able to read for mentioning Catholicism.

And then what?

Given the fact that Catholicism wasn't mentioned by the poster I was responding to, nor by those defending her, your silly post is still irrelevant.
7.27.2008 9:53pm
The Ace (mail):
As I said before, however, I don't consider consensual sexual relations between adults to be immoral in the first place.

So what?

Your view is irrelevant. You asked (a set of stupid) questions that can be answered by the bible. A text which is very clear on what is immoral. You may not agree, but who cares?
7.27.2008 9:54pm
Oren:
Um, I didn't make the list. God did and in fact any sex outside of marriage is immoral and the bible is very clear on this.
Thank you for making a definitive and final pronouncement about the will of God. I'm sure the Creator of the Universe is glad to have you around to make such interpretations for us.

I hear he's quite mad at himself for giving us the faculty to make our own judgments about his will too. Calls it a monumental error.

You can talk about your irrelevant moral code all you want. But it's still irrelevant.
One second, you'll complain that non-paleolithic views on sexuality are ubiquitous and poisoning the minds of our children, the next second, they are quaint irrelevancies.
7.27.2008 9:57pm
theobromophile (www):
As I said before, however, I don't consider consensual sexual relations between adults to be immoral in the first place.

Okay, I'm a heathen, but even I know that the relevant question is not what YOU consider to be sexually immoral, but what the Lord so considers.
7.27.2008 9:57pm
The Ace (mail):
I don't consider consensual sexual relations between adults to be immoral in the first place.

And God disagrees,


"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body" (1 Corinthians 6:18-20).


So, I guess you have that going for you.
7.27.2008 9:58pm
Oren:
Your view is irrelevant. You asked (a set of stupid) questions that can be answered by the bible. A text which is very clear on what is immoral. You may not agree, but who cares?
And your claim to singular interpretation of the bible is monumentally arrogant. Nobody appointed you to declare for any other human being what the bible does and does not permit.
7.27.2008 10:00pm
The Ace (mail):
but even I know that the relevant question is not what YOU consider to be sexually immoral, but what the Lord so considers.

As I said, you're in intellectual coward.

You are actually pretending God did not condemn pre-marital, and any, sex outside marriage.

But again, it is all about you! God is just like a little buddy in the sky!
7.27.2008 10:00pm
The Ace (mail):
And your claim to singular interpretation of the bible is monumentally arrogant.

Hilarious.

And pathetic.
7.27.2008 10:01pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
Your view is irrelevant. You asked (a set of stupid) questions that can be answered by the bible. A text which is very clear on what is immoral. You may not agree, but who cares?
Agreed. Now please stop eating pork.
7.27.2008 10:02pm
The Ace (mail):
Nobody appointed you to declare for any other human being what the bible does and does not permit.

The bible is very clear. Any biblical scholar, priest, revered, or rabbi will tell you this.

Instead of being so incoherent and intellectually dishonest, just admit you do not like what it says.


"Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion ." (1 Corinthians 7:8-9)
7.27.2008 10:03pm
The Ace (mail):
Nobody appointed you to declare for any other human being what the bible does and does not permit.

And the list goes on,


Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." (1 Corinthians 7:1-2, KJV)
7.27.2008 10:05pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
The bible is very clear. Any biblical scholar, priest, revered, or rabbi will tell you this.
I agree, but, then, any rabbi will tell you that you haven't been quoting the bible.
7.27.2008 10:06pm
The Ace (mail):
Nobody appointed you to declare for any other human being what the bible does and does not permit.

Yeah, not so much


Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."


And how do we define fornication?


fornication n. sexual intercourse between a man and woman who are not married to each other."
7.27.2008 10:07pm
Oren:
The bible is very clear. Any biblical scholar, priest, revered, or rabbi will tell you this.
And who, pray tell, appointed these people to interpose themselves in my personal relationship with God?

Your entire conception of religion as something that is taught instead of something that is learned is entirely foreign to me. God commanded us to study the bible day and night, not to blindly listen to others who claim to speak in His name.

PS. I've known a number of rabbis, ministers, seminary students and scholars of religions that likewise eschew a hyper-literal interpretation of the biblical texts. Not that you would acknowledge them as legitimate but that just speaks to the circularity of your logic -- anyone that does not interpret the bible the way you do MUST be doing it wrong.
7.27.2008 10:11pm
theobromophile (www):
The Ace,

Can you please explain your comment here?

Being an "intellectual coward" is news to me....
7.27.2008 10:13pm
theobromophile (www):
Until then, the time commitments involved in parenting a newborn (combined with a total lack of sleep) make graduate school a non-starter. On some level, we have to admit that some of life's goals are simply incompatible with one another -- if you want an advanced degree and children, you'll have to do them sequentially.

First of all, I love how your "more choices are better!" rhetoric went right out the window the second I mentioned an option that doesn't involve men getting laid a lot more often than they otherwise would.

There are a few women who have had children and gone to school. I've even heard women say that graduate school can be a good time to have a newborn, because you're in class for only about 12 hours a week (which leaves plenty of time for interaction with the kid) and you've yet to start your career.

My law school had a lot of parents, but it's a place that is remarkably friendly to families.
7.27.2008 10:19pm
Oren:
theo -- I applaud any woman brave enough to attempt law school and parenting at the same time and I have absolutely no problem with anyone making that choice. I was only saying that it seems like it would be very difficult.

Also, I should note that my experience is in the hard sciences where grad school generally entails a 60-80 hours/wk commitment, usually inconveniently scheduled. If law school is more forgiving, then all the better.
7.27.2008 10:28pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: Oren
RE: Mere Obfuscation....Again

"And the unequivocal and open promulgation of hatred under the guise of Christianity is what, chopped liver?" -- Oren

Why is it you think someone who does not obey GOd should be considered a 'Christian'?

Something to do with your pathetic efforts, perhaps?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[A tree is known by its fruit. -- some Wag, around 2000 years ago]
7.27.2008 10:37pm
Oren:
Chuck, I have always obeyed God to the best of my understanding of His will. I am also aware that others disagree with me about the substance of God's will. Shall we turn every theological difference of interpretation into a cause for bitter divisions? Is it God's will for us to let these differences turn into acrimony and accusations of infidelity?
7.27.2008 10:41pm
theobromophile (www):
A thought about sexuality and the question of why we were made to desire intercourse if it is forbidden to us:

We are made to want things (and find pleasure in things) that are good for us. Humans enjoy eating, playing, running around, spending time with family and friends, playing with babies, and the like - all things which are good for us as individuals and as people. As C.S. Lewis said, God is a hedonist: he has filled the earth with enjoyable things for humans. (Mere Christianity.)

Eating is enjoyable, yet there is the sin of gluttony; Job - wealthy and comfortable, was one of God's favoured men, but the Bible is highly critical of the wealthy and we recognise the sin of avarice; and the initial plan for humans was to repose in the Garden of Eden, without toiling the soil for food, yet we recognise the sin of sloth.

In all these situations, we see the folly of taking a good thing too far, beyond its natural constraints. Eating is good for our bodies; eating too much is not. Having sex may be physically and emotionally satisfying, but having sex as we were not designed to have sex - i.e. out of wedlock - is not the answer. As one of my friends so wisely put it, God is not trying to ruin our fun. The things he tells us to do are for our own good. IMHO, "Don't eat too much, sleep too much, laze around all day, be mean to other people, or sleep around" is pretty good advice.

I'm sure that you are not unfamiliar with the numerous Biblical references to "one flesh."

As a final thought on this: why was the tree put in the Garden of Eden if humans were not to eat of it? Gen. 3:6 says: "So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate."
That is what we generally call "The Fall."
7.27.2008 10:44pm
Mutant Pacifist (mail) (www):
>Are you seriously suggesting that the infant morality rate was 85%?

Even if those who did not die before the age of 5 lived until they were 80, that would result in a life expectancy of about 15 years.<

Even in Yemen in the 1970s, the infant mortality rate was 75%. This was probably the norm throughout most of human history for the past two million years. Though women might not have had 14 kids because they would die in childbirth first. So, while I don't have exact figures on hand, yes, I am serious that the infant mortality rate, combined with the maternal mortality rate, and the low life expectancy in general, would have meant that very few children born survived to adulthood.

As for your other point, about making graduate school more friendly to mothers -- and fathers! -- I would welcome such a policy. But even the most generous policy would still only accommodate a family with a few children, certainly not the ten to eighteen that natural marital relations and good health care would make possible without contraception.
7.27.2008 10:48pm
theobromophile (www):
Mutant Pacifist,

While I'm not a huge fan of citing to Wikipedia, I do love this table they have here.

The highest infant mortality rate is in Sierra Leone - a war-torn country - and is approximately 16%. Approximately 3/4th of children there live until age 5.

According to this, the infant mortality rate in Yemen in 1960 was less than 25%.

That is so incredibly far removed from the statistics that you and Cave Robot have stated (although not cited). If y'all are going to go with an infant mortality rate of around 75% - 85%, y'all need to provide a citation.
7.27.2008 11:06pm
Oren:
In all these situations, we see the folly of taking a good thing too far, beyond its natural constraints. Eating is good for our bodies; eating too much is not. Having sex may be physically and emotionally satisfying, but having sex as we were not designed to have sex - i.e. out of wedlock - is not the answer. As one of my friends so wisely put it, God is not trying to ruin our fun. The things he tells us to do are for our own good.
Of course, the last sentence is a tautology -- what God wants for us is, be definition, our own good.

I'm curious how you decided that sex out of wedlock was contrary to God's design, though.
7.27.2008 11:08pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: Oren
RE: Heh

"...I have always obeyed God to the best of my understanding of His will." -- Oren

I'm not your Judge. He is.

But I get the distinct impression that you could benefit from better understanding of 'His will'.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be wrong. -- Abraham Lincoln]
7.27.2008 11:10pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: All
RE: Case In Point

"I'm curious how you decided that sex out of wedlock was contrary to God's design, though." -- Oren

Someone pass him a Good Book and ask him to explain away....


Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. -- 1 Cor 7:2


Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. It might also be a good idea to check:

[1] His command of the English language.
[2] If he has a good dictionary of the same.
[3] Whether or not he has graduated from a reputable high school.
7.27.2008 11:15pm
Oren:
Chuck, if I have erred in determining God's will then I am willing to accept the consequences. Still, I think that God would rather his children think for themselves, even if they err, than blindly accept what they are told.

IOW, the core of God's will is that we make use of the prodigious faculties that he bestowed upon us (which he did not do for nothing) even if such faculties may lead us to error than neglect their use entirely.
7.27.2008 11:15pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
P.P.S. Somewhere above he says he'll gun someone down....

...I guess he doesn't consider that inflicting misery. After all, like those people who live along the San Andreas fault, they're 'asking for it'.

Hey! I wonder if someone could apply that same excuse to women who have been raped?
7.27.2008 11:18pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: All
RE: Once Again

Oren doesn't care to answer questions. It's pretty obvious as to why.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Prevaricator: A liar in the caterpillar state.]
7.27.2008 11:21pm
theobromophile (www):
Oren,

I'm heading to bed soon, so I don't have time to rummage through the Bible to give you a comprehensive explanation. (If you would like to continue this discussion, however, I am certainly amenable to that. Leave a comment on my site; your email is hidden from everyone but me.)

Quickly, however, I'll leave you with this thought: which side would you rather err on? To many people, the answer is simple (to understand, although not to follow) and obvious; you, however, may put a different value upon certain experiences, and less weight upon something you deem to be unlikely.
7.27.2008 11:23pm
Randy R. (mail):
Ace: "The gays were right there with the bra burners arguing that not only was marriage a horrible institution, "

Yeah, that's why so many gays are trying to get married across the US....
7.27.2008 11:24pm
Randy R. (mail):
Listen, folks — I've learned the hard way. When Ace enters the message stream, the quality quickly degenerates to nothing more than name calling and insults because that's all he can do.

Cue to Ace to call me....
7.27.2008 11:29pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: theobromophile
RE: Probably....

"....I don't have time to rummage through the Bible to give you a comprehensive explanation." -- theobromophile

....a waste of time anyway, vis-a-vis teaching HIM anything. However, probably a solid effort to teach something to others who may come across this discussion.

RE: Errings

"....which side would you rather err on?" -- theobromophile

I doubt if he cares. Why? Because, as I see it, he doesn't believe that God exists. At least not publicly.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Atheist, n., One hoping to God that He doesn't exist.]
7.27.2008 11:30pm
Oren:
Someone pass him a Good Book and ask him to explain away....
I don't need to explain my interpretation of the bible to you or to anyone else. It is a personal matter between myself and my Creator.

It's nice to see that you've appointed yourself judge of my religious beliefs though. Sounds like something Jesus would be in favor of.

P.P.S. Somewhere above he says he'll gun someone down....
That was in the context of a criminal breaking into my house in the middle of the night.
7.27.2008 11:54pm
Oren:
I doubt if he cares. Why? Because, as I see it, he doesn't believe that God exists. At least not publicly.
How wonderful that you can read my mind and declare for the world what I believe.
7.27.2008 11:55pm
Mutant Pacifist (mail) (www):
"According to this, the infant mortality rate in Yemen in 1960 was less than 25%.

That is so incredibly far removed from the statistics that you and Cave Robot have stated (although not cited). If y'all are going to go with an infant mortality rate of around 75% - 85%, y'all need to provide a citation."

Fair enough, I'm working on finding a real citation. I admit, the figure was from my time in Yemen in the 1970s, from the Peace Corps, and I might have misremembered.

But do keep in mind that Yemen was split into North Yemen and South Yemen. I'm not sure, but I suspect the statistic you quoted was from South Yemen, which, in 1960, was occupied by the British and had much better health, sanitation and literacy. North Yemen was much more primitive.
7.28.2008 1:24am
The Ace (mail):
I don't need to explain my interpretation of the bible to you or to anyone else. It is a personal matter between myself and my Creator.

Remmeber, it is all about you! God is just like a little buddy in the sky. You can do no wrong! He's just like a cooler version of Santa Clause or something!
7.28.2008 11:15am
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: Oren
RE: Yeah...Right....

<blockquote>I don't need to explain my interpretation of the bible to you or to anyone else. It is a personal matter between myself and my Creator.-- Oren </blockquote>

<blockquote>It's nice to see that you've appointed yourself judge of my religious beliefs though. Sounds like something Jesus would be in favor of. -- Oren </blockquote>

RE: Of Misery and Men and Guns and Oren

<blockquote> P.P.S. Somewhere above he says he'll gun someone down.... -- Chuck Pelto, regarding Oren

That was in the context of a criminal breaking into my house in the middle of the night.-- Oren </blockquote>

I knew that. What’s your point? That someone breaking into your house to steal from you isn’t an example of the ‘misery’ you didn’t care about? Until it hits YOU in the face like a fist?

You’re only proving my point.

RE: It’s Easy

<blockquote> I doubt if he cares. Why? Because, as I see it, he doesn't believe that God exists. At least not publicly. -- Chuck Pelto, regarding Oren

How wonderful that you can read my mind and declare for the world what I believe. -- Oren </blockquote>

All one has to do is read what you’ve written.

Hope that helps.

TO: All
RE: Back On-Topic...

....in a manner of speaking

Oren is an excellent example of the tactics used by those who espouse the continued madness, changing the subject. But if you read their own words and are observant, you’ll notice that they offer NOT ONE SOLUTION to the burgeoning problems. Nor, according to Oren, do they even care.

Even more indicative of their position, they WON’T care until they have to pull a gun in their own defense, selfish lot that they are.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Every experiment, by multitudes or by individuals, that has a sensual and selfish aim, will fail. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson]

P.S. Are we learning yet?
7.28.2008 11:16am
The Ace (mail):
And who, pray tell, appointed these people to interpose themselves in my personal relationship with God?

Me, me, I, I!

It is all about you! God is just like a little buddy in the sky. You can do no wrong! He's just like a cooler version of Santa Clause or something!

God commanded us to study the bible day and night, not to blindly listen to others who claim to speak in His name.

Um, and then what?
Are you actually claiming you have "studied" the bible and concluded the words do not mean what they say?

You do realize why you're conflating the issue here, right?
7.28.2008 11:18am
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: All
RE: Previous Post

WELL....

...that came out pretty ugly. I'll try it again....

My apologies.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The only Guy I know who was perfect, got nailed to a tree.]
7.28.2008 11:18am
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: Oren
RE: Yeah...Right....

I don't need to explain my interpretation of the bible to you or to anyone else. It is a personal matter between myself and my Creator.-- Oren


It's nice to see that you've appointed yourself judge of my religious beliefs though. Sounds like something Jesus would be in favor of. -- Oren


RE: Of Misery and Men and Guns and Oren

P.P.S. Somewhere above he says he'll gun someone down.... -- Chuck Pelto, regarding Oren

That was in the context of a criminal breaking into my house in the middle of the night.-- Oren


I knew that. What’s your point? That someone breaking into your house to steal from you isn’t an example of the ‘misery’ you didn’t care about? Until it hits YOU in the face like a fist?

You’re only proving my point.

RE: It’s Easy

I doubt if he cares. Why? Because, as I see it, he doesn't believe that God exists. At least not publicly. -- Chuck Pelto, regarding Oren

How wonderful that you can read my mind and declare for the world what I believe. -- Oren


All one has to do is read what you’ve written.

Hope that helps.

TO: All
RE: Back On-Topic...

....in a manner of speaking

Oren is an excellent example of the tactics used by those who espouse the continued madness, changing the subject. But if you read their own words and are observant, you’ll notice that they offer NOT ONE SOLUTION to the burgeoning problems. Nor, according to Oren, do they even care.

Even more indicative of their position, they WON’T care until they have to pull a gun in their own defense, selfish lot that they are.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Every experiment, by multitudes or by individuals, that has a sensual and selfish aim, will fail. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson]

P.S. Are we learning yet?
7.28.2008 11:19am
The Ace (mail):
I'm curious how you decided that sex out of wedlock was contrary to God's design, though

You mean other than explicit commands in biblical scripture?

It is unbelievably pathetic you continue to dispute the fact the bible says these things.
7.28.2008 11:20am
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: Oren
RE: Yeah...Right....

I don't need to explain my interpretation of the bible to you or to anyone else. It is a personal matter between myself and my Creator.-- Oren


...and men who have spent more time than you have studying that Old Book get together on a weekly basis to talk to each other for the purpose of better understanding.

Meanwhile, according to your attitude, you know God’s mind perfectly. Whereas any rational person knows better.

It's nice to see that you've appointed yourself judge of my religious beliefs though. Sounds like something Jesus would be in favor of. -- Oren


As I’ve commented numerous times, including here, I am not your judge. Your Judge is the same as MY Judge. And as for you knowing the mind of Jesus Christ, you’ve failed to answer even the simplest questions that have been asked of you regarding your understanding.

As I’ve said before, you’re a fraud.

TO: The Ace
RE: Oren

You do realize why you're conflating the issue here, right? -- The Ace


Isn’t that what I was saying just above? And, as you said....

It is all about you! God is just like a little buddy in the sky. You can do no wrong! -- The Ace


This person is the epitome of ‘selfish’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[A feverish, selfish little clot of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy. -- George Bernard Shaw]
7.28.2008 11:27am
The Ace (mail):
The Ace,

Can you please explain your comment here?

Being an "intellectual coward" is news to me....


If your question is that you think I referred to you as an intellectual coward, I did not. If I copied your words by mistake, it was a mistake. Oren is the epitome of an intellectual coward in my view.
7.28.2008 11:30am
The Ace (mail):
This person is the epitome of ‘selfish’

Exactly.
It is bizarre to watch someone imply that God is here to somehow facilitate his happiness.

He's in for quite the shock come judgement day.
7.28.2008 11:36am
The Ace (mail):
How wonderful that you can read my mind and declare for the world what I believe.

Too funny.

You've only typed it over &over Oren.

I have always obeyed God to the best of my understanding of His will

It if funny how that "understanding" seems to fit your personal lifestyle choices.
7.28.2008 11:39am
Anonymous Law Student:
Wow. The Ace and Chuck have proved my points better than I ever could. Highly entertaining to watch those two post.
7.28.2008 12:47pm
Oren:
It is bizarre to watch someone imply that God is here to somehow facilitate his happiness.
Much preferable to a nasty spiteful God that created me solely for the purpose of being miserable. If that's the nature of God, I should think the addition of a Devil to be quite redundant.
7.28.2008 1:19pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: Todd Zywicki, Glenn Reynolds, et al.
RE: A Return to Sanity

Some people here, to include Mr. Zywicke, seem to be of the impression that a retrenchment from the stupidity of sensual selfishness would be a bad think.

I ask them how is that?

The problem is that all that I've encountered so far is vagaries, i.e., baseless innuendo. And the only purpose of their arguments, such as they are, would seem to be that they are incapable of citing specifics that support their thesis. Therefore the understanding is that all their args are pejorative in nature.

So. For the sake of better discussion, I ask:

[1] What is it you're afraid of?
[2] Do you have any specific concerns? If so state them.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Prejudice, n., A vagrant opinion without visible means of support. -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary]
7.28.2008 1:23pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: All
RE: Mere Ignorance....

"Much preferable to a nasty spiteful God that created me solely for the purpose of being miserable." -- Oren

...but tempered with pride.

Dollars to donuts Oren cannot explain the 23d Psalm.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Stupid, adv., Ignorant and proud of it.]
7.28.2008 1:27pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: All
RE: Errata

Stupid is an adjective. Not an adverb....

Sorry about that.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Use what language you will, you can never say anything but what you are. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson]
7.28.2008 1:32pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: Anonymouse Law Student
RE: Glad...

"Highly entertaining to watch those two post." -- Anonymouse Law Student

...to brighten your day.

RE: Law Student, You Say

Do you know Glenn Reynolds? Could you ask him to expand on his 'concern' about what unintended consequences he'd expect of a retrenchment from the 'sexual revolution'?

Or, failing that, could you suggest something useful for discussion here?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[My great concern is not whether you have failed, but whether you are content with your failure. -- Abraham Lincoln]
7.28.2008 1:41pm
ba2 (mail):
If I lived in the "Sex and the City" world other posters live in I might think the same way. But my grades were only good enough to get a public defender job. I see nothing but misery brought by the sexual revolution.
7.28.2008 1:56pm
Chemical fan:
To whoever said of Natural Family Planning:


It is an empowering method for women and men, and free of chemicals, hormones, etc



No, it not free of chemicals and hormones. It may be free of ingesting "artifical" chemicals, but anything involving still having sex involves hormones, no? If you write your information down, you are using chemically-based objects for pen and paper.

Nothing in life is "chemical-free," as many commenters and food-sellers need to learn.
7.28.2008 2:06pm
The Ace (mail):
Much preferable to a nasty spiteful God that created me solely for the purpose of being miserable

The amount of hubris you have, for no good reason, is quite astounding.

You ought to try not being so self centered for once.

However, thank you for confirming so much about the modern left.
7.28.2008 2:08pm
Oren:
I can now grasp the immense folly that the founders perpetrated by their absurd idea that a man should be free to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience. It would have been much better if man were free to worship God according to the dictates of the self-righteous fools who have appointed themselves to tell us the correct way to worship Him.
7.28.2008 2:41pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: All
RE: Mere Projection, Anyone?

"It would have been much better if man were free to worship God according to the dictates of the self-righteous fools who have appointed themselves to tell us the correct way to worship Him." -- Oren

And remember, he has his own 'creator' who tells him what he can do, without caring for anyone else.

Can you say, "Projection"? I knew you could....

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. I wonder if he would fit in with Reverend Phelps and company.
7.28.2008 3:04pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
P.P.S. I say that because I remember how Christ exhorted us to love our neighbor as we would love ourself.

But the selfish people like Oren, don't care about other people. Unless they have to shoot them....as he described a situation (above).
7.28.2008 3:06pm
Oren:
I can't imagine any form of hate for my neighbor worse than imputing that God does not, in fact, want him to be happy.
7.28.2008 3:20pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: All
RE: Oren and His Neighbor

"I can't imagine any form of hate for my neighbor worse than imputing that God does not, in fact, want him to be happy." -- Oren

Funny think that. He'll happily gun his 'neighbor' down if he should 'invade' his house. But Oren won't lift a finger to relieve his neighbor's misery because Oren thinks such misery is not 'his problem'....up until his neighbor invades his 'personal space'. Then he'll kill him.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[You can't make this stuff up.]
7.28.2008 3:24pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
P.S. What was the wisdom Benjamin Franklin stated?

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound[ing] of cure.

Too bad Oren has problems that don't take such wisdom into account.
7.28.2008 3:27pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: All
RE: Interesting Evasions

"I can't imagine any form of hate for my neighbor worse than imputing that God does not, in fact, want him to be happy." -- Oren

I'm still waiting for Oren to explain the 23d Psalm.

But I'm not holding by breath.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Obfuscation and evasion are the hallmarks of the non-Christian.]
7.28.2008 3:31pm
Silly Girl:
SK says: Without the Pill: women (and men) cannot have sex (casual or otherwise) without additional worry about the consequences (i.e. having a child).

With the Pill: women (and men) can have sex (casual or otherwise) without additional worry about the consequences (i.e. having a child).

In either case, women can go to law school.


Logically for purposes of a blog thread, you may be correct. Practically, you miss the point: the consequence (i.e., having a child) is much, much greater for women than for men. Many men manage to avoid the consequence altogether, others reduce it to a check and a weekend a month. I feel like I'm stating the obvious here, but a child is an enormous financial and legal responsibility for at least 18 years and usually longer. You can't just stick the baby in your locker and head off to Contracts class (or your surgical residency, or your dissertation research). It's a 24 hour a day job. Unless you are financially well-off enough to afford a nanny or daycare (and if you're a student, you probably aren't), you can't just leave the child to pursue your own endeavors. It is possible to care for an infant while in law school (I knew two women who did it out of the several hundred I went to school with, they were both lucky enough to have family to help), but the practical consequences, financially and time-wise, make it a near impossibility for most women, and discourages them from pursuing or continuing to pursue their individual endeavors.

Again, I don't think this is a radical idea (which is why Prof. Zywicki seemed to take it for granted). Almost everyone can think of someone we knew in high school or college who dropped out because she got pregnant. That's one of the many reasons why teen pregnancy is such a problem: it often prevents the girl from finishing her education or pursuing a well-paying career. That's why teen moms often wind up in poverty. The Pill isn't a cure-all, but by making pregnancy less likely, it makes it more likely that the woman won't have to deal with the consequences, which are life-changing and often do change a woman's life options.

If you're not convinced, spend a week or so caring for an infant, add up all the money you spend and the time you have to yourself, think about your everyday responsibilities, and ask yourself if the two are compatible.
7.28.2008 4:38pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: Silly Girl
RE: Okay....

"The Pill isn't a cure-all, but by making pregnancy less likely, it makes it more likely that the woman won't have to deal with the consequences, which are life-changing and often do change a woman's life options." -- Silly Girl

....please explain why it is that after 30 years of pushing Pills and all this 'sex education', we have such a high teen pregnancy rate? As in statistically significantly higher than what we experienced in the early 1960s.

I look forward to your explanation.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
7.28.2008 5:27pm
Oren:
Obfuscation and evasion are the hallmarks of the non-Christian.
I still find it amusing that you insist on this formulation without explaining how a devout non-Christian like Mssr Phelps manages to be quite forthright and un-evasive.
7.28.2008 7:21pm
Oren:
Funny think that. He'll happily gun his 'neighbor' down if he should 'invade' his house. But Oren won't lift a finger to relieve his neighbor's misery because Oren thinks such misery is not 'his problem'....up until his neighbor invades his 'personal space'. Then he'll kill him.

(1) I would not shoot any human being unless I was convinced that he posed an immediate and unambiguous threat to my life.

(2) Considering that my neighbor would be substantially free from coercive actions allegedly taken in his benefit, I believe he would be considerably happier than under a beneficent coercion.

It is the ultimate sign of respect for my neighbor that I consider him a fully functional human being capable of managing his own affairs without my meddling. If I though less of him, I would insist on minding his affairs.
7.28.2008 7:27pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: All
RE: As I Was Saying...

....Oren can't explain the 23d Psalm.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
7.28.2008 7:37pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
P.S. One would think that any reasonable person would, at this point, have looked up Psalm 23 and be able to speak to their understanding of it.

However, for some strange reason Oren hasn't yet.

Some people might get the impression that were he to pick-up that Old Book, it might scorch his fingers. Or that if he should read the words on a page on the web, it would sear his eyes....

....the way he's avoiding it.
7.28.2008 7:58pm
Oren:
Your infatuation with Ps 23 makes no sense.

Chuck, why don't you look up the 4th chapter of the Iliad and give me your thoughts?
7.28.2008 8:12pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: All
RE: Oren &Projection....Again....

'nuff said.

He's still afraid to explain something on the topic of his choice.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
7.28.2008 8:14pm
Cave Robot (mail):
>Do you know Glenn Reynolds? Could you ask him to expand on his 'concern' about what unintended consequences he'd expect of a retrenchment from the 'sexual revolution'? <

I don't know Glenn Reynolds, but I can think of a few consequences, quite intended by those who disapprove of the sexual revolution and want to reverse or stop it:

- Beating gays up in Amsterdam
- Stoning women for being raped in Iran
- Marrying girls off at age ten in Yemen

Dude, it isn't hard to see the alternatives to the sexual revolution. Just look at the places where it hasn't happened, and the places where religious nuts are trying to bring back the good old days you seem to idolize.

Oh, and maybe this wasn't true in the 1960s, but for most of history, illegitimate teenage pregnancy was prevented by the simple recourse of marrying girls off at as soon as they hit puberty. Lower the marriage age back to twelve, and illegitimate teen pregnancy will no longer be a "problem".
7.28.2008 8:41pm
Oren:
I will conclude from your inability to interpret ch4 of the Iliad that you like to eat hotdogs in the shower.
7.28.2008 8:45pm
Colin (mail):
Oren, I think you need to add four to fourteen lines of superfluous headers, footers, and agonizingly hokey quotations to put your parody on-target. As it is, you have way too much signal and not nearly enough noise.
7.28.2008 9:06pm
Randy R. (mail):
Chuck: "...please explain why it is that after 30 years of pushing Pills and all this 'sex education', we have such a high teen pregnancy rate? As in statistically significantly higher than what we experienced in the early 1960s."

Well, obviously, those women who get pregnant are not using the Pill. So you can hardly blame the Pill for creating pregnancies. That's sorta bizarre, isn't it? Perhaps if you want to reduce the high teen pregnancy rate, you should make the Pill more available, not less.

But that would require an ounce of common sense, so I understand your reluctance.
7.29.2008 2:34am
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: Randy R.
RE: Obviously

"Well, obviously, those women who get pregnant are not using the Pill. So you can hardly blame the Pill for creating pregnancies." -- Randy R.

And why aren't they? After all the years and years of sex education?

"Perhaps if you want to reduce the high teen pregnancy rate, you should make the Pill more available, not less." -- Randy R.

I do believe that is exactly what the public school'sex education' system, in conjunction with Planned Parenthood Give-a-Kid-a-Pill operations is doing. So why isn't it working?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[You can lead a horticulture but you can't make it think.]
7.29.2008 11:34am
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: Cave Robot
RE: Heh...

"- Beating gays up in Amsterdam
- Stoning women for being raped in Iran
- Marrying girls off at age ten in Yemen

....it isn't hard to see the alternatives to the sexual revolution." -- Cave Robot

First off, this is neither Holland, Iran nor Yemen.

Secondly, all those thinks are against the law in THIS land.

RE: Reasonable Discussion

If you've concerns about the law of the land changing vis-a-vis backing away from the sexual revolution, those are better expressions of reasonable issues than the tripe than some people around here have been doing. That includes the author if the original article.

Kudos to you.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate. -- Hubert H. Humphrey]
7.29.2008 11:38am
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: Randy R., Cave Robot, Oren, et al.
RE: Hmmmm....a Monty Python Moment, Perhaps?

Rather 'quiet' around here.

Why is that?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Run awaaaayyyyyy!]
7.29.2008 4:15pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: All
RE: As I Was Saying....

"The Pill isn't a cure-all, but by making pregnancy less likely, it makes it more likely that the woman won't have to deal with the consequences, which are life-changing and often do change a woman's life options." -- Glenn Reynolds

According to Oren, these people are just 'asking' for it.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Coincidence, n., When God works a miracle and doesn't get the credit.]
7.29.2008 4:57pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: All
RE: Oops

The "Cut &Paste" function didn't works quite right.

Here's the citation from Glenn Reynolds...
Reader Monica Showalter emails: "This thing went on and on….felt like a second bottle of whiskey kicking in or maybe sitting on Jell-O." I don't think she's actually experienced either of those firsthand but I take the point. And hey, i could be wrong.


Were we not, the other 'day', discussing how Oren thinks people bring things on themselves?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
7.29.2008 5:01pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: Oren
RE: Misery On the Web Is Closer than It Appears

"FBI Takes to Streets to Battle Crime in Philadelphia" -- Fox News Item at....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,394142,00.html

It would appear that if you live in a larger metroplex, the 'misery' that Oren didn't care about, is more likely to hit him—or you—in the face.

I can understand why the mayor of the 'City of Brotherly Love' called on the FBI before asking the governor to call up the Pennsylvania National Guard.....

....it would be too embarrassing, in more ways than one.

Hopefully, for Oren's sake, he resides in the more rural area where the misery of teenage-pregnancy/single-parent-'families' is not likely to send miserable people to bang on his front door so he has to shoot them.

We're talking SERIOUS unintended consequences here. Like unto death.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[An ounce of prevention is worth a pound[ing] of cure. -- some wag from (c.)250 years ago]
7.29.2008 9:23pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
P.S. Anyone getting a 'clue' here?

Anyone got an 'answer'?

Anyone wanna buy a 'vowel'?
7.29.2008 9:24pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
P.P.S. Oren...

...would you be so kind as to put a codicil in your Last Will and Testament—legally, not theologically speaking—that we should be informed of your demise? And the nature of it's occurrence?
7.29.2008 9:51pm
Michael Edward McNeil (mail) (www):
theobromophile writes:
I - a modern woman, late 20s, unmarried, law degree - cannot help feeling as if we've traded one set of problems for another: that we've gone from lamenting how married men seek out prostitutes to having them seek out every single female with a pulse for the same needs, with the same expectation that those needs will be met by her.

I am not alone in my thinking, either. Many of my friends - although not a random sample of women in their 20s and 30s - likewise lament the effects of the sexual revolution. They have law degrees, medical degrees, and PhDs, but feel as if they are living in a loony bin. The "committed relationship" standard of the '60s and '70s devolved - rather quickly - into the "third date" standard of the '80s, and, now, is first date - or, often, no date at all.


As you yourself point out, you weren’t there during the 60’s and 70’s and 80’s. I suggest whoever told you this (“committed relationship,” “third date”), softened it a bit. Continuing:

Far from moving beyond the times in which men would seek sexual gratification from prostitutes, we've moved into an era in which men treat all women like hookers. Sort of. At least if I were a sex worker, I could get paid for doing what men expect me to do for free.

What goes around comes around. Perhaps what you wish for will occur — again, as that’s exactly what the custom was during Roman times. As Paul Veyne writes in his chapter of the book he also edited, Volume I of A History of Private Life:

“The social and institutional character of the Roman economy was so different from that of our own that it is tempting to call it archaic. It sustained, nevertheless, a high level of production and was as dynamic and ruthless as capitalism. For, if Roman aristocrats distinguished themselves by their culture and their interest in philosophy, they were still avid for profit. The greatest nobles talked business. Pliny, a senator, in letters intended to be specimens of the finest in the genre, held up his behavior as a wealthy landlord as an example for others to follow. When a noble wished to get rid of old furniture or building materials, he held a public auction. (Auctions were the normal way for private individuals to sell their used belongings; the emperors themselves auctioned off unwanted palace furniture.) Money was not supposed to lie idle. Even loans to friends and relatives earned interest (not charging interest on such loans was considered a mark of special virtue). A woman’s father had to pay interest to her husband if transfer of her dowry was delayed. Usury was a part of daily life; modern anti-Semites might have made ancient Rome the object of their obsession instead of the Jews. In Rome commerce and money-lending were not left exclusively to professionals or to any one class of society. Any toil, no matter how pleasurable, merited payment. One picturesque aspect of amorous customs among the Romans was that the female partner in a high-society affair was paid for her trouble. A matron who deceived her husband received a large sum or, in some cases, an annual income from her lover. Some cads reclaimed these gifts when affairs were broken off, and on occasion the courts became involved. The practice of accepting gifts from lovers was considered not prostitution but work for hire. The woman did not give herself because she was paid, the jurists held; she was rewarded for giving herself of her own free will. She who loved best was most handsomely paid. Women sought the wages of adultery as eagerly as men sought dowries.”
7.31.2008 1:49pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: theobromophile
RE: The Truth Hurts?

...we've moved into an era in which men treat all women like hookers. -- theobromophile


On the one hand, it's true, to a great degree. A LOT of men treat a LOT of women as if they are hookers, prostituting themselves for the attention of men.

On the other hand, it's likewise true that a lot of women ARE 'prostituting themselves'. Just for the attention of men. If you doubt this, look at how a lot of young women are dressing and acting. I'm talking role-models of Spears and Hilton. I think Dr. 'Instawife' Helen could have a field day with this topic.

On the third hand, there are a good number of men and women who still respect each other. Many of them have a code of conduct based in {HORROR!} Christian ethics. [Note: By the by, Christianity did not buy into the 'sexual revolution'. Why? Because it is not written....]

Regards,

Chuck(le)
7.31.2008 5:28pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
P.S. Reviewing your earlier comment....


....we've moved into an era in which men treat all women like hookers. -- theobromophile


Isn't that a bit of prejudice? With a goodly dash of misandry? As in [all] men?

I know a good number of christian men who do not do such. Indeed. They hardly look at another woman as a sexual object. And, oddly enough, they all have wifes and children.

But you seem to be of the opinion that all men do such. Or at least that's the way any reasonably prudent understanding of English would read it.
7.31.2008 8:30pm