Are the culture wars really just about sex?

posted at 12:41 pm on July 30, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

In large part, the culture wars revolve around sex — sexual politics, sexual conventions, and the impact of sex on culture and cultural institutions. But is sex the actual prime issue in the culture wars? Damon Linker’s column at The Week argued that it is:

The culture war isn’t really about culture, and it never has been.

It’s about sex.

Leading social conservative Rod Dreher conceded as much last week — and I think he’s absolutely correct. Writing about what divides traditionalist religious believers from those who are more liberal or progressive, Dreher posed a pair of questions: “Take sex out of the picture, and what do you have? If we’re not talking about sex, what are we talking about?”

The answer is: nothing. We are talking — and fighting, and slinging mud, and spewing bile — about nothing but sex. And in particular, about two competing, largely incompatible visions of the proper place of sex in a good human life.

Damon spews no bile, but offers a very thoughtful essay in support of his argument that the culture war boils down to sex. In fact, Damon also argues that the “losing” side — the traditionalists — should be respected, since the implications of the sexual revolution are not yet fully known. He poses some of those issues in terms of tough questions that are still unanswered:

Do children do best with two parents of opposite genders? Or are two parents of the same gender just as good? Or better? How about one parent of either gender? What about three, four, five, or more people in a constantly evolving polyamorous arrangement?

Can the institution of marriage survive without the ideals of fidelity and monogamy? What kind of sexual temptations and experiences will technology present us with a year — or a decade, or a century — from now? Will people be able to think of reasons or conjure up the will to resist those temptations? Will they even try? Does it even matter?

After mulling Damon’s essay for a day or so, I wrote a response at The Week, which went up today, arguing that these questions show that the culture wars are not about sex, at least not as the prime concern. It’s about the impact that the sexual revolution has on culture and cultural institutions, especially the basic unit of civilization — the family. Speaking for the traditionalists, I argue that the devastation of the family over the last several decades makes that point, and Damon’s questions reflect the dangers:

Since the advent of The Pill, divorce has skyrocketed, as have out-of-wedlock births and the percentage of children raised in single-parent homes.

The traditionalists saw this coming. Pope Paul VI got roundly criticized for his encyclical Humanae Vitae, but it predicted 46 years ago this week most of the ills that have arisen from disconnecting sex from procreation and family life. The pontiff wrote:

Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards…

…a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection. [Humanae Vitae]

The issue in this warning isn’t the sex, but the degrading influence on the stability of the community that contraceptives create. …

To be sure, Pope Paul VI framed this in terms of Catholic teaching and faith. However, when he wrote that in “preserving intact the whole moral law of marriage, the Church is convinced that she is contributing to the creation of a truly human civilization,” the issue was not sex itself, but the health of human communities. The traditionalist view is that sex cannot be separated from its consequences for civilization, and that the effects of attempting to do so over the last several decades demonstrate the damage it does to try.

So yes, the culture “wars” relate in large part to sexual politics — but in the end, they are about culture and civilization, not just the sex itself.

Be sure to read them both in full, and let us know what you think in the comments.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

The point is to illustrate , therefore the relationships must be obvious. The point is not that homosex is as bad as nuclear suicide, the point is that there is a line where what has to have the bad effects historically documented becomes unreasonable risk.

Axeman on July 30, 2014 at 1:46 PM

I suspect that you and I agree on the clear and present danger that today’s cultural revolution brings. My analysis of your example provided you precisely the reason why the masses fail to fathom the enormous and negative consequences of the cultural revolution, yet immediately grasp and are scared to death by the threat of nuclear war.

Interestingly, however, the two have a common denominator. …

In order to go about their daily lives without losing their minds, the masses tune both out — equally, even though their minds fathom each unequally, when focused.

This is why they don’t listen to people like you and me. We’re just a-holes — a word that their minds, incapable of self-reflection, assign to us as shorthand for the concept of “killjoy.”

It’s why the masses read “OK!” and “Us” and watch “TMZ” even as the Middle East burns and the southern border disappears.

It’s why they barely even bat their eyelashes as grown men bring the 12-year-olds they raped to Planned Parenthood four times, and this organization — funded in part by their tax dollars — doesn’t even report it.

It’s why 0BowMao is POTUS.

brentspolemics on July 30, 2014 at 2:20 PM

And the way women treated today is better? Women are used for sex and dumped like trash by men. At least the men prior to sexual revolution made honest women and settled down. They bought their wives homes and raised a family. You’re lucky these days if baby daddies pay child support on time.

terryannonline on July 30, 2014 at 1:59 PM

In today’s world, women have many advantages from our counterparts. Do you really want to go back to the world of the Kennedys and Mad Men where women had very few career options, had to put up with their husbands’ affairs, couldn’t get a prescription to the Pill, and were only allowed to be housewives and mothers? As a woman, I’m glad that I was able to attend college and graduate school and that I’m allowed to have a career. I’m glad that I can obtain birth control from my doctor because of Griswold. I’m glad that Title IX guaranteed my right to educational and athletic opportunities.

The reason why the secular view of sex is so tempting is because the pre-1960s traditional view of family in society is so untempting. And the reason why religious conservatives lost is because they doubled down on the traditional view of gender roles that was unappealing to many people, especially many women.

Illinidiva on July 30, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Another example of moon bat lunacy:

Three genetic parents — for one healthy baby

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-daar-mitochondrial-replacement-20140321-story.html

workingclass artist on July 30, 2014 at 2:21 PM

No, it’s called the sexual revolution because it was about overthrowing the norms that came before. In it’s place wasn’t freedom, but depravity.

nobar on July 30, 2014 at 2:15 PM

And feminism was about liberating females. So now, in 2014, they no longer enjoy their traditional place in society and the idea that raising the family was a calling above merely earning a salary.

Happy Nomad on July 30, 2014 at 2:22 PM

Bottom line, traditionalists and social conservatives are hardly the one-dimensional stereotypes you people think they are.

Happy Nomad on July 30, 2014 at 2:19 PM

They constantly prove that they are.

Armin Tamzarian on July 30, 2014 at 2:24 PM

Armin Tamzarian on July 30, 2014 at 2:17 PM

Then I suggest you carry out a causal analysis of your own. And I can give you an example premise to use.

Start here.

Choose ten from the list and ask people to define them. Many of them can’t. Because it simply hasn’t been part of their knowledge base.

Religious sources, such as the Bible, focus primarily on the human spirit/soul, although there are references to other aspects of being human, such as mental, emotional, and physical. These sources include valuable information about character traits and character development.

Society has all but forsaken teaching about character traits and character development. Why does that matter?

Let me ask you this…what is prudence? And how do you know when prudence should be applied in a situation you face in life?

There’s your causal…conscience choice of human behaviors and the moral and ethical impact it has on society as a whole.

lineholder on July 30, 2014 at 2:24 PM

Wrong.

Feminists succeeded because they redefined the approved identity of Women.

Women bought into the fallacy of allowing others to define them preferring the laziness of group solidarity to individual freedom because they saw this as a means to achieve political power.

Like any other group…Women allowed the group to create an identity.

In order to be part of the Power Union of Women…one needs to first swallow the group authored history/mythology/doctrine etc. to feel defined along the new perimeters…

This happens in any group seeking power.

workingclass artist on July 30, 2014 at 2:02 PM

The feminists succeeded because the traditional roles that women had in the 1950s were so unappealing. It is much more fun to be able to at least earn one’s own money and not have to rely on a husband for all your needs. And most women enjoy having the ability to space out their children and control their fertility.

Illinidiva on July 30, 2014 at 2:25 PM

Indeed for many ‘traditionalists’ and many social conservatives it is all about sex. They’re view SSM as about 2 men having sex. They see abortion rights as women being sluts. They see sex ed as kids being encouraged to have sex. So the Church is instructive here in that they pioneered the idea of keeping people uninformed and/or ashamed, and thus beholden to those who could deem them worthy or not worthy of G-d’s love.

verbaluce on July 30, 2014 at 2:03 PM

Alternatively, traditionalists and social conservatives could see SSM as straying from the covenant of marriage being between a man and a woman who come together to create and raise a family. Two dudes having sex are not going to produce a child no matter how many times they have sex.

Traditionalists and conservatives could see abortion rights as saving the child even if the mother is a bar slut seeking to kill a life because it is inconvenient. And they could see sex ed as something the parents and not the state should be teaching a child- free from the amorality that comes in the socialist incubators known as the public school system.

Bottom line, traditionalists and social conservatives are hardly the one-dimensional stereotypes you people think they are.

Happy Nomad on July 30, 2014 at 2:19 PM

Setting aside the religious component for a moment…

These culture changes are representative of anarchy.

Traditionalists and Conservatives see this as potentially leading to something akin to what happened in France during the Reign of Terror.

workingclass artist on July 30, 2014 at 2:26 PM

Illinidiva on July 30, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Sexual avarice was a means of temptation to mankind long before this nation was even founded.

Are you saying women are not capable of exercising discretion in overcoming temptations associated with sex? That we should simply “live and let live” in a carnal state where our baser desires dictate our actions?

Because given the pregnancy, abortion, and unwed mother rates in America, that’s basically where women are these days.

lineholder on July 30, 2014 at 2:28 PM

Illinidiva on July 30, 2014 at 2:25 PM

Your response is one of a rose-colored ideal for women, not the reality in American society.

lineholder on July 30, 2014 at 2:29 PM

The feminists succeeded because the traditional roles that women had in the 1950s were so unappealing. It is much more fun to be able to at least earn one’s own money and not have to rely on a husband for all your needs. And most women enjoy having the ability to space out their children and control their fertility.

Illinidiva on July 30, 2014 at 2:25 PM

Really?

Women weren’t working in the 1950″s?

I guess they weren’t going to college either…

What a load of crapola.

workingclass artist on July 30, 2014 at 2:29 PM

Feminism is now about being a Lesbian….or pretending to be one to score political points and vent resentment about males.

Don’t believe me…read up on the current ranting…

Feminism is finally out of the closet.

*shrug*

workingclass artist on July 30, 2014 at 2:33 PM

@Ill

No one is saying women shouldn’t have careers. But a lot of women these days have NO choice but to have careers because of the sexual revolution. The sex revolution delinked sex with marriage. Well when you delink sex from marriage you make it easier for children out of wedlock. So now we are in the mess we are in. A bunch of poor single moms. Yay! Female empowerment!

terryannonline on July 30, 2014 at 2:34 PM

workingclass artist on July 30, 2014 at 2:33 PM

Feminism has been a means of encouraging and propagating Lesbianism since the days of the Sexual Revolution in the 1960s and 70s. They actually recruited females into Lesbianism then, saying that a women couldn’t truly support the feminist cause unless she experienced Lesbianism.

According to the feminists of that day, this was what it meant to experience “freedom” and “liberty”.

lineholder on July 30, 2014 at 2:36 PM

And feminism was about liberating females. So now, in 2014, they no longer enjoy their traditional place in society and the idea that raising the family was a calling above merely earning a salary.

Happy Nomad on July 30, 2014 at 2:22 PM

let’s apply your interesting formulation to a similar situation:

And abolitionism was about liberating blacks. So now, in 2014, they no longer enjoy their traditional place in society and the idea that raising cotton is a calling above merely earning a salary.

funny how that makes your prejudice really obvious.

Tlaloc on July 30, 2014 at 2:37 PM

Are you saying women are not capable of exercising discretion in overcoming temptations associated with sex? That we should simply “live and let live” in a carnal state where our baser desires dictate our actions?

I reject your false dichotomy between “exercising discretion in overcoming temptations” (read: following Catholic moral teachings on sexuality to the letter) and rutting like farm animals. Sex outside of your religion’s narrowly-prescribed purpose and function is no more base or animalistic than it is within.

Most people are not going around f*cking everything that moves. You have an utterly skewed perception of the reality that exists outside of your church.

Armin Tamzarian on July 30, 2014 at 2:38 PM

I can see here is someone who failed freshman high school science class. Stating a hypothesis, and observing the phenomena and the hypothesis being proven correct, is the cornerstone of science.

completely, emphatically, indisputably false — and moreover ridiculous. science cannot ever prove hypotheses correct in the affirmative sense. it can only disprove, or rule out, incorrect ones (the obvious exception to the first assertion being a proof of “X is not caused by Y” when Y has been causally excluded).

otherwise, you still obviously don’t know anything about freshman high-school science, because one of the first things one does learn is “correlation does not imply causation” — precisely what the original poster was implying. while i agree with ed that the sexual irresponsibility of modern culture is largely attributable to the “sexual revolution” inceived by the pill, post hoc, ergo propter hoc is still fallacious demonstrative reasoning: it can never be affirmatively demonstrated that a single cause among many is responsible for a given outcome unless all other possible causes are excluded — an undertaking that is obviously impracticable.

in other words, it’s back to 9th grade with another nescient x tian invoking science as a means to support a worldview totally inconsistent with, er, objective reality.

My suggestion to you, if you are gay, is to look long and hard at how far you want to support the LGBT movement in undermine traditional values.

the point that the more vociferous, publically visible members of the homosexual “community” are often intentionally transgressive in an antisocial manner — and, importantly, that not all homosexuals should want to see themselves associated with such nonsense — is a fair one.

the apparently implied point that most, or even a sizeable minority, of members of the LGBT movement want anything more than the same governmental recognition of their chosen interpersonal unions borders on the libellous.

jaxisaneurophysicist on July 30, 2014 at 2:40 PM

No one is saying women shouldn’t have careers. But a lot of women these days have NO choice but to have careers because of the sexual revolution. The sex revolution delinked sex with marriage. Well when you delink sex from marriage you make it easier for children out of wedlock. So now we are in the mess we are in. A bunch of poor single moms. Yay! Female empowerment!

terryannonline on July 30, 2014 at 2:34 PM

Also a lot more satisfied men and women because their sexual urges are no longer controlled by a repressive church. Also a lot more men and women who are able to leave bad marriages and better their lives. Also a lot less (percentage wise) battered women.

Tlaloc on July 30, 2014 at 2:41 PM

Armin Tamzarian on July 30, 2014 at 2:38 PM

Are you female? Were you pregnant at 16?

If the answer to either or both of those questions is “no”, then I can honestly say I know more about the potential of women than you do.

We are capable of more than society (and particularly the left) is willing to give us credit for. Not only in the context of education or careers, but as individuals, in our hearts and minds and souls. We’re capable of holding to high moral standards, and of having a positive contribution in the lives of those around us and in society as a whole, by striving for this goal in our lives.

lineholder on July 30, 2014 at 2:43 PM

If it were more advantageous to raise a child with two parents of the same sex or gender, wouldn’t natural selection have accounted for that? We’d have a mechanism to let that happen naturally.

But, we don’t, so it isn’t. Two dudes raising a child does not result in a child better equipped to survive and procreate.

TarasBulbous on July 30, 2014 at 2:43 PM

Really?

Women weren’t working in the 1950″s?

I guess they weren’t going to college either…

What a load of crapola.

workingclass artist on July 30, 2014 at 2:29 PM

Lots of women weren’t and if they were, they would only work as teachers or secretaries until they married. Married or pregnant women could be denied entrance to college because of their status. There weren’t sexual harassment or equal pay laws. Women were generally treated like “little children” when they attended college with dorm mothers and curfews. And before Griswold, birth control could be banned.

No one is saying women shouldn’t have careers. But a lot of women these days have NO choice but to have careers because of the sexual revolution. The sex revolution delinked sex with marriage. Well when you delink sex from marriage you make it easier for children out of wedlock. So now we are in the mess we are in. A bunch of poor single moms. Yay! Female empowerment!

terryannonline on July 30, 2014 at 2:34 PM

The solution to out-of-wedlock birth isn’t to promote some extreme version of the 1950s where women were only maids and brood mares, which is what religious conservatives are after. The answer to one extreme isn’t to promote the other extreme. (The Catholic Church, for instance, is against all birth control including the use of birth control by married women who already had multiple high risk pregnancies.)

Illinidiva on July 30, 2014 at 2:45 PM

jaxisaneurophysicist on July 30, 2014 at 2:40 PM

That will be of little comfort to our society as a whole when the radical members of the LGBT movement have so great an impact on legislation in American that traditionalists are no longer allowed to teach moral absolutes to their children because it will defined as ‘discriminatory” or “hate speech”.

lineholder on July 30, 2014 at 2:46 PM

Feminism has been a means of encouraging and propagating Lesbianism since the days of the Sexual Revolution in the 1960s and 70s. They actually recruited females into Lesbianism then, saying that a women couldn’t truly support the feminist cause unless she experienced Lesbianism.

According to the feminists of that day, this was what it meant to experience “freedom” and “liberty”.

lineholder on July 30, 2014 at 2:36 PM

Why do you find that so threatening? Let’s assume what you said is right for the sake of argument, I look at that and say “hrmm some mixed up feminists then, no big deal.” You react with fear and outrage. Why?

Tlaloc on July 30, 2014 at 2:46 PM

@Ill

No one is saying women shouldn’t have careers. But a lot of women these days have NO choice but to have careers because of the sexual revolution. The sex revolution delinked sex with marriage. Well when you delink sex from marriage you make it easier for children out of wedlock. So now we are in the mess we are in. A bunch of poor single moms. Yay! Female empowerment!

terryannonline on July 30, 2014 at 2:34 PM

If they had careers they wouldn’t be poor, would they? Everybody should be capable of being self-sufficient, regardless of their gender.

Also, you’re not making a very persuasive case for why the sexual revolution has made it impossible for you to become the kept woman you aspire to be. Find some “traditional” man who wants a brood mare for a wife and you’ll be set, just like you would have been a century ago.

Armin Tamzarian on July 30, 2014 at 2:47 PM

@Tlaloc

Studies show that married people are more satisfied with their sex lives. But keep telling yourself our raunchy culture is satisfying anyone

terryannonline on July 30, 2014 at 2:47 PM

Tlaloc on July 30, 2014 at 2:46 PM

Because of the deceitfulness of it and the manner in which women were used.

It wasn’t about freedom and liberties. It was about undermining traditional values so that a scope of moral standards more applicable to Socialistic and Marxist goals (i.e. dependency on government rather than independent from government) could be put into place.

lineholder on July 30, 2014 at 2:48 PM

If it were more advantageous to raise a child with two parents of the same sex or gender, wouldn’t natural selection have accounted for that? We’d have a mechanism to let that happen naturally.

But, we don’t, so it isn’t. Two dudes raising a child does not result in a child better equipped to survive and procreate.

TarasBulbous on July 30, 2014 at 2:43 PM

But we do, actually. Remember that humanity evolved as a pack animal. We didn’t evolve to have monogomaous pairings. Rather the pack leader was the one who mated with the eligible females and the group as a whole raised the children, including non-mating males and homosexual adults.

Without understanding that you can’t possibly understand human sexuality.

Tlaloc on July 30, 2014 at 2:49 PM

funny how that makes your prejudice really obvious.

Tlaloc on July 30, 2014 at 2:37 PM

Typical liberal bullcrap.

Set up a false strawman and then scream racist.

Happy Nomad on July 30, 2014 at 2:49 PM

Tlaloc on July 30, 2014 at 2:46 PM

And those weren’t just mixed up feminists…that was the position of the leader of NOW during the Sexual Revolution.

lineholder on July 30, 2014 at 2:50 PM

@Tlaloc

Studies show that married people are more satisfied with their sex lives. But keep telling yourself our raunchy culture is satisfying anyone

terryannonline on July 30, 2014 at 2:47 PM

That’s the wrong question. The right question is are people more satisfied with their sex lives now than before they had much choice in the matter. Even that question isn’t the right one because people back in the 50s were generally hugely ignorant of sex thanks to puritan “morals.”

Tlaloc on July 30, 2014 at 2:51 PM

Tlaloc on July 30, 2014 at 2:49 PM

You’re referring to the mating patterns of lower species, not human beings.

Ironic. And y’all call traditional values archaic. ;-)

lineholder on July 30, 2014 at 2:51 PM

Typical liberal bullcrap.

Set up a false strawman and then scream racist.

Happy Nomad on July 30, 2014 at 2:49 PM

Or just pointing out how you rationalize treating women as inferiors by pretending it elevates them.

Tlaloc on July 30, 2014 at 2:52 PM

Eat, poop, sleep and screw — the meaning of life, if you ask the left.

ezspirit on July 30, 2014 at 2:53 PM

You’re referring to the mating patterns of lower species, not human beings.

Ironic. And y’all call traditional values archaic. ;-)

lineholder on July 30, 2014 at 2:51 PM

I’m not suggesting we embrace it, just understand it. Men want to mate with lots of women because of dna not sin. You have to understand that if you want to deal with the issue intelligently.

Tlaloc on July 30, 2014 at 2:54 PM

Are you female? Were you pregnant at 16?

If the answer to either or both of those questions is “no”, then I can honestly say I know more about the potential of women than you do.

We are capable of more than society (and particularly the left) is willing to give us credit for. Not only in the context of education or careers, but as individuals, in our hearts and minds and souls. We’re capable of holding to high moral standards, and of having a positive contribution in the lives of those around us and in society as a whole, by striving for this goal in our lives.

lineholder on July 30, 2014 at 2:43 PM

The essence of your argument here–that removing the restraints imposed by “traditional” Judeo-Christian sexual and cultural mores is somehow keeping women from reaching their full potential–is patently absurd.

Surely you can hold yourself to high moral standards without demanding that everyone else be held to them even if they lack your convictions.

Armin Tamzarian on July 30, 2014 at 2:54 PM

Tlaloc on July 30, 2014 at 2:51 PM

On the list of priorities, where does sexual gratification of the individual fall on the responsibility the individual has to society as a whole to participate in maintaining a set of moral standards that will support our form of government in the long run?

lineholder on July 30, 2014 at 2:55 PM

Tlaloc on July 30, 2014 at 2:54 PM

.
Ready to respond to this, yet ?

listens2glenn on July 30, 2014 at 2:57 PM

Too complicated. Biochemistry is destiny. The family unit depends on a male, testosterone, and a female spouse, progesterone and estrogen. The union cannot be duplicated with same sex parents because the hormones cannot be duplicated. It does not matter even if same sex couples yielded better outcomes, which they do not, because a subset of 1% of the population is irrelevant. What is amazing is that so called progressives are biology deniers. They should look up Lysenko.

Nexialist on July 30, 2014 at 2:57 PM

Armin Tamzarian on July 30, 2014 at 2:54 PM

Oh, no, it isn’t the least bit absurd.

Women have had ‘sexual freedom and liberty” pressed upon them for almost five decades now while emphasis on character development for women has fallen by the wayside. The basis for contrast on human behavior has been that of males…and considering how many times it has been said that men act like dogs where sex is concerned….

All I’m saying is that women are capable of contributing much more than to society, and that they should be given the opportunity to develop the traits that will give them the best chance to do so.

Don’t like the idea that they don’t have that opportunity? Talk to Planned Parenthood about their early sex ed programs.

lineholder on July 30, 2014 at 3:00 PM

The issue isn’t just the liberal pop culture; the cultural conservatives response to the sexual revolution also helped bring about the situation. Yes, “twerking”, Kim Kardashian, and baby daddies are awful, but the correct response to the situation wasn’t to condemn all forms of birth control and lament the good old days when women knew their place was pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen. To most sane people, that vision is as unappealing as “twerking.” What I’ve said in the past is that both the secular culture and religious traditionalists both only see women as objects.. the secular culture as a pin up and religious traditionalists as a brood mare. I’d like to be seen as an individual instead. Perhaps, when society starts doing that, we can get to a better place concerning sexuality.

Illinidiva on July 30, 2014 at 1:22 PM

Is there a P.O. Box we can send birth control to for you? Can’t have that level of stupid procreating. We have enough problems with the liberals.

AllahsNippleHair on July 30, 2014 at 3:03 PM

Tlaloc on July 30, 2014 at 2:54 PM

I was pregnant at sixteen. Trust me, I understand those factors exceptionally well.

What I also know is that women are capable of resisting temptations, sexual or otherwise. Why does our society place more emphasis on sexual freedoms and liberties than it does on resisting temptations?

If it was genuinely an effort to help women and have women become stronger, as individual members of society, then the emphasis would be on the latter rather than the former.

lineholder on July 30, 2014 at 3:05 PM

(The Catholic Church, for instance, is against all birth control including the use of birth control by married women who already had multiple high risk pregnancies.)

Illinidiva on July 30, 2014 at 2:45 PM

Rhythm method.

workingclass artist on July 30, 2014 at 3:06 PM

Tlaloc on July 30, 2014 at 2:54 PM

.
I was pregnant at sixteen. Trust me, I understand those factors exceptionally well.

What I also know is that women are capable of resisting temptations, sexual or otherwise. Why does our society place more emphasis on sexual freedoms and liberties than it does on resisting temptations?

If it was genuinely an effort to help women and have women become stronger, as individual members of society, then the emphasis would be on the latter rather than the former.

lineholder on July 30, 2014 at 3:05 PM

.
I think I scared him (her?) off … sorry ’bout that … : (

listens2glenn on July 30, 2014 at 3:10 PM

I think I scared him (her?) off … sorry ’bout that … : (

listens2glenn on July 30, 2014 at 3:10 PM

Not a problem. ;-)

lineholder on July 30, 2014 at 3:12 PM

Tlaloc on July 30, 2014 at 2:54 PM

I was pregnant at sixteen. Trust me, I understand those factors exceptionally well.

What I also know is that women are capable of resisting temptations, sexual or otherwise. Why does our society place more emphasis on sexual freedoms and liberties than it does on resisting temptations?

If it was genuinely an effort to help women and have women become stronger, as individual members of society, then the emphasis would be on the latter rather than the former.

lineholder on July 30, 2014 at 3:05 PM

Because our society rejects traditional moral criticism…except when the left use moral relativism to enhance their hypocrisy.

What will all those proponents of SSM say to the polygamists and incestuous clamoring for legalization of their definition of marriage…

workingclass artist on July 30, 2014 at 3:16 PM

Indeed for many ‘traditionalists’ and many social conservatives it is all about sex.

verbaluce on July 30, 2014 at 2:03 PM

Bottom line, traditionalists and social conservatives are hardly the one-dimensional stereotypes you people think they are.

Happy Nomad on July 30, 2014 at 2:19 PM

For sure – which is why I said ‘many’…and not ‘all’.

verbaluce on July 30, 2014 at 3:19 PM

Too complicated. Biochemistry is destiny. The family unit depends on a male, testosterone, and a female spouse, progesterone and estrogen. The union cannot be duplicated with same sex parents because the hormones cannot be duplicated.

i guess biochemistry really is too complicated for you, because it happens to be precisely the case that the hormonal profiles can be “duplicated”. it has been well-characterised that, even in opposite-sex parental pairs, males who act more “woman-like” in their parenting behaviour (i.e., more nurturing, more cuddling, more physical closeness, &c.) are subject to a significant elevation of female hormones — in particular oestrogen — that apparently work to reinforce, in a “hormone mnemonic” fashion, the traditionally maternal parenting behaviours.

similarly, “the mother” of a male homosexual pair exhibit biochemical hormonal response behaviour profiles closer to new mothers than new fathers! it turns out that one can, in fact, “duplicate” not only hormonal expression profiles of the opposite sex, but also the opposite sex’s endocrinological response to the presence those hormones — at least in homosexual men. (data from lesbians has proved more nuanced.)

what is amazing is that so many x tians are biology general-science deniers.

The basis for contrast on human behavior has been that of males…and considering how many times it has been said that men act like dogs where sex is concerned….

i actually make this point all the time to putative “feminists” — on what basis is sociological parity with typically male behaviours a feminist notion!? it seems rather ridiculous to assert the equality, or even primacy of the female sex while demanding that the female sex ape the behaviours of their male partners in order to demonstrate that equality. obviously, occupational liberty has been a productive and progressive force; the entrée of women into the traditionally male-dominated workforce has not only widened the perspectives of industries entrenched in their task-oriented ways, but it has also led to generations of much better-educated women who are able to more productively contribute to discussions of social, political, and — yes — domestic policy. on the other hand, as i’ve mentioned before, the so-called “sexual revolution” only makes it more difficult for chaste women to extract concessions from impatient potential male partners who have many other opportunities for liaison with “liberated” partners. as a male, the problem is especially egregious for me, but i can certainly understand the perspective of a traditionalist woman for whom sexual intercourse has become a rather valueless bargaining chip.

All I’m saying is that women are capable of contributing much more than to society, and that they should be given the opportunity to develop the traits that will give them the best chance to do so.

i think the op’s point was that women still have the opportunity to seek out and enter into traditionalist unions. hopefully you would not dispute that women who choose to do so in the modern sociopolitical climate are worse equipped for having comparatively more complete educations prior to marriage. what is problematic is not that a gamut of “untraditional” opportunities have been opened to women, it is rather the sneering disrespect of housewifery displayed openly by the feminist left.

it would be unimaginably destructive to the progress of humanity were women to be retroactively consigned, as a matter of course, to traditional housewifery. but it is similarly destructive that women are inclined toward such traditional life roles are treated with such contempt.

in fact, individuals ought to be able to choose (consensually) the life role they most desire — and that goes for males who are biologically predisposed to effeminacy! if a male should want another male to take him as a housewife, it is contrary to the principles of liberty upon which this nation was founded to refuse him the right to do so when such right is freely extended to heterosexual couples.

jaxisaneurophysicist on July 30, 2014 at 3:22 PM

lineholder on July 30, 2014 at 3:05 PM

.
Because our society rejects traditional moral criticism…except when the left use moral relativism to enhance their hypocrisy.

workingclass artist on July 30, 2014 at 3:16 PM

.
Or (to put words in Tlaloc‘s mouth) because having women assume the role of “morality anchor” gives too much recognition of God.

listens2glenn on July 30, 2014 at 3:23 PM

Indeed for many ‘traditionalists’ and many social conservatives it is all about sex.
verbaluce on July 30, 2014 at 2:03 PM

Bottom line, traditionalists and social conservatives are hardly the one-dimensional stereotypes you people think they are.

Happy Nomad on July 30, 2014 at 2:19 PM

For sure – which is why I said ‘many’…and not ‘all’.

verbaluce on July 30, 2014 at 3:19 PM

It’s like this: Many, not all, liberals are so ignorant they need to be reminded to breathe.

AllahsNippleHair on July 30, 2014 at 3:23 PM

Traditionalists and Conservatives see this as potentially leading to something akin to what happened in France during the Reign of Terror.

workingclass artist on July 30, 2014 at 2:26 PM

I don’t think it’s potentially – it’s part of the attempt to redo the French Revolution, which was intended to fundamentally remake French society, French culture, and the French nation under a small group of enlightened intellectuals. One of the most primary targets, the Church.

Except in this case, so far, rather than the Reign of Terror, the sans-culottes and Jacobins are going to use / abuse the power of the apparatus of the state rather than Madame Guillotine to enforce the subjugation and acceptance of the people. The EPA, the IRS, DoE, DoJ’s selective enforcements and prosecutions, all of these are examples of the boot of the government on the neck of the people demanding the people’s acceptance of the state.

What’s lost with many, is that French Revolution was the first true fascist revolution…not based on state ownership of everything, but state control of everything.

Athos on July 30, 2014 at 3:24 PM

jaxisaneurophysicist on July 30, 2014 at 3:22 PM

.
Oh … no . . . . . . . there goes the ‘bandwidth’.

listens2glenn on July 30, 2014 at 3:24 PM

Rhythm method.

workingclass artist on July 30, 2014 at 3:06 PM

Yes, the one method which guarantees that you will indeed get pregnant again. That is the reason that the Church “allows” it, because it doesn’t actually work. The Catholic Church is a patriarchal organization. They only see value to women’s wombs.

Is there a P.O. Box we can send birth control to for you? Can’t have that level of stupid procreating. We have enough problems with the liberals.

AllahsNippleHair on July 30, 2014 at 3:03 PM

Why? Because I pointed out women aren’t emotionally satisfied by waiting hand and foot on their husbands and having twelve kids.

Illinidiva on July 30, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Eat, poop, sleep and screw — the meaning of life, if you ask the left.

ezspirit on July 30, 2014 at 2:53 PM

You forgot the choom….

Athos on July 30, 2014 at 3:26 PM

The sexual revolution was not responsible for women being more integrated into the work place. That was a result of men leaving to fight WWII, coming back and then a rebalancing of those two different work eras.

The sexual revolutions primary effect was to attack the family as undesirable – as oppressive and misogynistic yada yada yada. It said a woman doesn’t need a man (because hey look, government will be your sugar daddy). So women decided they didn’t need men and men became free to do what they are inclined to do – get sex without any responsibility. Our culture spend centuries and generations domesticating and civilizing MEN to focus on the needs of WOMEN and CHILDREN and the sexual revolution’s aim was to unravel all of that. But the institution of family developed not because it empowered men but because it cared for women and children and made men productive and forward looking. But that’s all passe now. And we’re seeing the abysmal results as intergenerational poverty has become entrenched because these cultural institutions – which also produced wealth – have been unraveled.

gwelf on July 30, 2014 at 3:26 PM

jaxisaneurophysicist on July 30, 2014 at 3:22 PM

.
All DNA, or “genetic information” has been corrupted, since the time of Noah.

Biochemistry that attempts to validate homosexuality as being a state of normal, doesn’t fly.

listens2glenn on July 30, 2014 at 3:29 PM

What’s lost with many, is that French Revolution was the first true fascist revolution…not based on state ownership of everything, but state control of everything.

Athos on July 30, 2014 at 3:24 PM

Agreed.

A proper Confederacy of Dangerous Dunces.

Lots of folks killed and France still hasn’t figured it out yet…or gotten over it…

workingclass artist on July 30, 2014 at 3:29 PM

The sexual revolutions primary effect was to attack the family as undesirable – as oppressive and misogynistic yada yada yada.

gwelf on July 30, 2014 at 3:26 PM

That’s why it’s one of the first major battlegrounds in the culture wars. If the family is deemed undesirable, then we have, among the other alternatives, the requirement that the state should be responsible for the proper education, up-bringing, indoctrination of the children (It takes a village…or a state).

As someone noted earlier, this view was consistent in the previous major revolutions designed to fundamentally remake society – the French, the Russian / Soviet, the Italian, the German, the Euro, and now the second American Revolution.

Athos on July 30, 2014 at 3:32 PM

Is there a P.O. Box we can send birth control to for you? Can’t have that level of stupid procreating. We have enough problems with the liberals.

AllahsNippleHair on July 30, 2014 at 3:03 PM

Why? Because I pointed out women aren’t emotionally satisfied by waiting hand and foot on their husbands and having twelve kids.

Illinidiva on July 30, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Nope. It’s your liberal leaning assumption that because you are a religious traditionalist, you automatically want your wife barefoot and pregnant with a keg of beer teetering on her baby bump.
I don’t twerk with a foam finger, but I don’t believe in burying a woman in a Y shaped coffin after bearing nineteen kids. And counting.

AllahsNippleHair on July 30, 2014 at 3:34 PM

But we do, actually. Remember that humanity evolved as a pack animal. We didn’t evolve to have monogomaous pairings. Rather the pack leader was the one who mated with the eligible females and the group as a whole raised the children, including non-mating males and homosexual adults.

Without understanding that you can’t possibly understand human sexuality.

Tlaloc on July 30, 2014 at 2:49 PM

Uhhhh but Alpha Males didn’t have a complete monopoly on sex and reproduction, we can see even in Chimpanzee tribes that Betas will still sneak one past the goalie (and fairly often.)

Besides, if all offspring are raised communally, what is the incentive for a fertile female to join the Alpha’s harem? All resources are going to be shared by the collective anyway, right?

It’s important to have critical thinking skills to discuss evolution and darwinism, without them you will will have a difficult time comprehending human sexuality (and much else.)

TarasBulbous on July 30, 2014 at 3:34 PM

Rhythm method.

workingclass artist on July 30, 2014 at 3:06 PM

Yes, the one method which guarantees that you will indeed get pregnant again. That is the reason that the Church “allows” it, because it doesn’t actually work. The Catholic Church is a patriarchal organization. They only see value to women’s wombs.

Is there a P.O. Box we can send birth control to for you? Can’t have that level of stupid procreating. We have enough problems with the liberals.

AllahsNippleHair on July 30, 2014 at 3:03 PM

Why? Because I pointed out women aren’t emotionally satisfied by waiting hand and foot on their husbands and having twelve kids.

Illinidiva on July 30, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Madame…

You stated the RCC was against all forms of birth control which is false. When you make a fallacious comment like that to score cheap points…others will state facts to counter it.

Facts are stubborn things… – John Adams

workingclass artist on July 30, 2014 at 3:35 PM

Look at what the sexual revolution has done for the poor – particularly the urban poor.

Rich white elites preached the sexual revolution while they had the social and financial capital to deal with the consequences while the culture they helped to create is disastrous for the middle class and poor who didn’t have that capital. And for 60+ years we’ve seen how pushing birth control and government assistance and redistribution as solutions to the problems the implosion of the family created has been an abysmal failure.

Now, pointing out that men and women are complimentary and that life-long relationships are healthy for the individuals involved and for society is called “patriarchy” and misogyny. Pointing out that birth control is not a solution for issues surrounding stable family formation is now seen as hatred of women and wanting to ban birth control. It’s crazy.

gwelf on July 30, 2014 at 3:36 PM

The loony left is strong here today.

The people that cite “Puritans,” act as though people were utterly ignorant about sex in the 50s, or act as though the 50s were some sort of hell for women are idiots who are abysmally ignorant. The current bunch did not discover sex, and knowledge of sex on the part of people who are now in their 80s was far greater than the idiots we see posting here are willing to admit.

Quartermaster on July 30, 2014 at 3:38 PM

OK, Mr./Ms. smarty pants jaxisaneurophysicist, riddle me this:

Why hasn’t our species evolved to produce offspring with two male or two female parents?

Are you saying we eventually will? …just like genetically inferior species apparently have evolved to do?

Do you grasp the sarcasm?

I suppose that today’s gheys are doing it RIGHT NOW. They’re making sure we evolve. Please show us examples of other species taking their evolution into their own hands, in a sentient way, with the help of big government.

THANKS, OBAMA!!!

brentspolemics on July 30, 2014 at 3:38 PM

That’s why it’s one of the first major battlegrounds in the culture wars. If the family is deemed undesirable, then we have, among the other alternatives, the requirement that the state should be responsible for the proper education, up-bringing, indoctrination of the children (It takes a village…or a state).

As someone noted earlier, this view was consistent in the previous major revolutions designed to fundamentally remake society – the French, the Russian / Soviet, the Italian, the German, the Euro, and now the second American Revolution.

Athos on July 30, 2014 at 3:32 PM

I believe it was George Gilder that said (paraphrase):

The destruction of the family means we’ll need a welfare state to care for the women and a police state to deal with the children.

Which is of course the point of the sexual revolution – dependency on the state. For over 100 years lefties have targeted the family as the most resistant institution to the state.

gwelf on July 30, 2014 at 3:41 PM

OK, Mr./Ms. smarty pants jaxisaneurophysicist, riddle me this:

Why hasn’t our species evolved to produce offspring with two male or two female parents?

Are you saying we eventually will? …just like genetically inferior species apparently have evolved to do?

Do you grasp the sarcasm?

I suppose that today’s gheys are doing it RIGHT NOW. They’re making sure we evolve. Please show us examples of other species taking their evolution into their own hands, in a sentient way, with the help of big government.

THANKS, OBAMA!!!

brentspolemics on July 30, 2014 at 3:38 PM

The good scientists are presently perfecting transplantation of uteruses.

Babies hatched inside machines is next…Women will finally be free…

Brave New World

*blech*

workingclass artist on July 30, 2014 at 3:42 PM

Madame…

You stated the RCC was against all forms of birth control which is false. When you make a fallacious comment like that to score cheap points…others will state facts to counter it.

Facts are stubborn things… – John Adams

workingclass artist on July 30, 2014 at 3:35 PM

The rhythm method isn’t birth control. The idea of birth control is that it is supposed to reliably prevent pregnancies, which the ridiculous non-birth control that the Catholic Church promotes doesn’t. I read conservative Catholic blogs on a regular basis and NFP types regularly have “oops” babies and have six+ kids on average. That doesn’t strike me as actual birth control. (Of course, since it is birth control methods devised by celibate men, many of whom are gay, then it isn’t shocking.)

Illinidiva on July 30, 2014 at 3:45 PM

Leading social conservative Rod Dreher

That statement assertion does bring into question any conclusion drawn, btw.

GWB on July 30, 2014 at 3:48 PM

As Life Dynamics reports, according to court documents, 40 year-old Joseph Coles (pictured right), began having sex with his stepdaughter when she was 10-years-old.

At 12, the stepdaughter became pregnant and her mother took her to the Cleveland Surgi-Center abortion clinic. The abortion was botched and the girl almost died from internal hemorrhaging.

Following the abortion, Coles persuaded the girl’s mother to put her on birth control; however, in 2004 the child again became pregnant by Coles and was taken to Planned Parenthood in Shaker Heights.

There she refused to submit to the abortion at that time but relented three days later and was taken to the Preterm Abortion Clinic in Cleveland.

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/07/29/man-takes-pregnant-12-year-old-he-raped-to-three-abortion-clinics-none-report-the-abuse/

davidk on July 30, 2014 at 3:51 PM

That’s why it’s one of the first major battlegrounds in the culture wars. If the family is deemed undesirable, then we have, among the other alternatives, the requirement that the state should be responsible for the proper education, up-bringing, indoctrination of the children (It takes a village…or a state).

As someone noted earlier, this view was consistent in the previous major revolutions designed to fundamentally remake society – the French, the Russian / Soviet, the Italian, the German, the Euro, and now the second American Revolution.

Athos on July 30, 2014 at 3:32 PM

Early progressives – including the Bismarckian Germans and their admirers – saw parents as ill-suited to raising children (to meet the needs of the state, which was also synonymous with society). Which was also the prototype of our current education system: the classroom was seen as a factory where the state would produce citizens in the same manner an industrial factory would produce parts. It’s funny when lefties lambast our current education system as factories to produce corporate drones – hey idiots it was your idea!

gwelf on July 30, 2014 at 3:51 PM

All DNA, or “genetic information” has been corrupted, since the time of Noah.

Biochemistry that attempts to validate homosexuality as being a state of normal, doesn’t fly.

…and you’re a out of your mind if you think i’m going to respect a chimaerical discussion of biochemical science that entertains obviously and provably false hypotheses about global floods and “pure” dna until 4000 years ago.

in fact, you’re a out of your mind just for lending any credence to such puerile idiocy. not even puerile — young children know far more about the geological history of h sapiens than do you!

as for the “normality” of homosexuality, i don’t even know what “normal” means; it’s a patently unscientific term (except in the mathematical senses), but it’s pretty clear that homosexuality is an aberrational behaviour.

…like blue eyes, but with more possible social advantages.

the point that flew stratospherically over your head while you were contemplating the relationship between DNA and the holy diluvium that occurred 196,000 years into the history of the species was simply that biochemistry is not even remotely close to being constitutively or functionally immutable, even within a given single organism.

“biochemistry is destiny” is about as imbecilic a thing to say as “DNA was corrupted after noah”…not quite as imbecilic, but close.

jaxisaneurophysicist on July 30, 2014 at 3:52 PM

Which is of course the point of the sexual revolution – dependency on the state. For over 100 years lefties have targeted the family as the most resistant institution to the state.

gwelf on July 30, 2014 at 3:41 PM

True but the tactic is older than that.

It is classically the divide and conquer stratagem used by most tyrants.

It is only accomplished when clan identity is destroyed through dispersal and loyalty to the State replaces loyalty to the clan/tribe.

This has been accomplished in North Korea through cultural indoctrination that over years diminishes the cultural memory.

What Karl Marx meant about religion being the opiate for the masses was that it is a useful tactic for tyranny…Make the State the religion…

The problem with Marx’s et,al. line of reasoning is that they must discount human cultural instincts in order to justify it’s flawed theory…and human cultural instincts eventually win out over totalitarianism…

Natural Law proposes that those human cultural instincts were endowed to humankind by their creator…not by a super state posing as a replacement for their creator.

workingclass artist on July 30, 2014 at 3:54 PM

The rhythm method isn’t birth control. The idea of birth control is that it is supposed to reliably prevent pregnancies, which the ridiculous non-birth control that the Catholic Church promotes doesn’t.

Illinidiva on July 30, 2014 at 3:45 PM

Not Catholic, and me and the wife have been using the rhythm method for years. We’ve done other forms, to the same success level, too.

Haven’t you watched popular film/tv, about a woman trying to conceive? The “humor” comes from the women having “make a baby” right there and now because their “temperature is up” (i.e. ovulating).

We used the rhythm method to get pregnant for both our kids too.

Yes, there are gray days where you don’t know if ovulation has started or not, or finished. But it’s not the crap shoot I thought it was when I was younger.

Axeman on July 30, 2014 at 4:00 PM

Madame…

You stated the RCC was against all forms of birth control which is false. When you make a fallacious comment like that to score cheap points…others will state facts to counter it.

Facts are stubborn things… – John Adams

workingclass artist on July 30, 2014 at 3:35 PM

The rhythm method isn’t birth control. The idea of birth control is that it is supposed to reliably prevent pregnancies, which the ridiculous non-birth control that the Catholic Church promotes doesn’t. I read conservative Catholic blogs on a regular basis and NFP types regularly have “oops” babies and have six+ kids on average. That doesn’t strike me as actual birth control. (Of course, since it is birth control methods devised by celibate men, many of whom are gay, then it isn’t shocking.)

Illinidiva on July 30, 2014 at 3:45 PM

Madame,

Whether you agree as to it’s success or not the Rhythm Method is the only form of family planning approved by the RCC because it does not conflict with the doctrine of Natural Law.

That is a fact outlined and explained in Catholic Doctrine.

Once again…

You stated that the RCC was against all forms of birth control and you are wrong…you committed a logical fallacy.

Birth Control is what it is…The intentional means to control the possibility of pregnancy…either to promote a pregnancy…to extinguish a pregnancy or to prevent a pregnancy.

This is either done through the conscious adoption of avoidance behavior such as abstention to avoid or engagement to promote…or through the use of of artificial agents and or procedures for the desired result.

Facts are stubborn things – John Adams

workingclass artist on July 30, 2014 at 4:04 PM

…and you’re a out of your mind if you think i’m going to respect a chimaerical discussion of biochemical science that entertains obviously and provably false hypotheses about global floods and “pure” dna until 4000 years ago.

jaxisaneurophysicist on July 30, 2014 at 3:52 PM

Surely a learned superior such as yourself would not react with incredulous hyperbole to a figure of speech, as if that figure of speech were a literal statement. SHEESH.

brentspolemics on July 30, 2014 at 4:07 PM

As Life Dynamics reports, according to court documents, 40 year-old Joseph Coles (pictured right), began having sex with his stepdaughter when she was 10-years-old.

At 12, the stepdaughter became pregnant and her mother took her to the Cleveland Surgi-Center abortion clinic. The abortion was botched and the girl almost died from internal hemorrhaging.

Following the abortion, Coles persuaded the girl’s mother to put her on birth control; however, in 2004 the child again became pregnant by Coles and was taken to Planned Parenthood in Shaker Heights.

There she refused to submit to the abortion at that time but relented three days later and was taken to the Preterm Abortion Clinic in Cleveland.

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/07/29/man-takes-pregnant-12-year-old-he-raped-to-three-abortion-clinics-none-report-the-abuse/
davidk on July 30, 2014 at 3:51 PM

The problem with this is that it happened 10 years ago in Ohio and it doesn’t appear that, at that time, Ohio law required reporting unless PP reasonably believed that there was abuse. Depending on what was then told, PP may not have been required to report it.

jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 4:09 PM

llinidiva on July 30, 2014 at 3:45 PM

I’d suggest you read up on Natural Law Doctrine…Before you post

workingclass artist on July 30, 2014 at 4:11 PM

Eat, poop, sleep and screw — the meaning of life, if you ask the left.

ezspirit on July 30, 2014 at 2:53 PM

And some of the right, so long as “drink, smoke, shop at Walmart and watch NASCAR” are also included.

jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 4:13 PM

jaxisaneurophysicist on July 30, 2014 at 3:22 PM

i actually make this point all the time to putative “feminists” — on what basis is sociological parity with typically male behaviours a feminist notion!? it seems rather ridiculous to assert the equality, or even primacy of the female sex while demanding that the female sex ape the behaviours of their male partners in order to demonstrate that equality.

Yeah…like this is the goal.

…but i can certainly understand the perspective of a traditionalist woman for whom sexual intercourse has become a rather valueless bargaining chip.

o_O ????

You know you’re really close to making my point for me about how the excessive amount of emphasis placed on sex within our society is a destructive influence, right?

(rolls eyes) As if that’s all females have to offer.

lineholder on July 30, 2014 at 4:16 PM

its all about lack of shame now. if it feels good it has to be good.
this society is fu**i*g itself into the annals of oblivion.

dmacleo on July 30, 2014 at 4:25 PM

Mr. Morrissey,

Thank you for remembering Humanae Vitae.

tenore on July 30, 2014 at 4:28 PM

The problem with this is that it happened 10 years ago in Ohio and it doesn’t appear that, at that time, Ohio law required reporting unless PP reasonably believed that there was abuse. Depending on what was then told, PP may not have been required to report it.

jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 4:09 PM

You just can’t help it, can you?

Her age, when first brought in – 12 years old.

Do you honestly think that the law in Ohio reasonably permits a 10 year to have sex where it is not statutory rape -or even at the age of 12 where pregnancy is proof of intercourse? Particularly with a partner who is not in close proximity in age (Romeo / Juliet type laws?)

In Ohio, where the victim is under the age of 13, unless the consensual partner is 13-17, it is illegal under all cases. And for those 13-17, if the act…

was
forced, coerced, or the perpetrator is in a position of
power over the victim, like a teacher, coach, parent and/or guardian.

…would be illegal and statutory rape.

Any responsible person, seeing a pregnant 12 year old should have notified the authorities immediately. Those authorities would then have investigated to determine if criminal charges were warranted under Ohio law.

That you make excuses for the three facilities that didn’t is as reprehensible as their failure to not report her condition to the authorities.

Athos on July 30, 2014 at 4:36 PM

Are the culture wars really just about sex?

Nope. The culture war includes bioethics, which while sex is a part of it, is not the entirety of it (cloning, genetic engineering, euthanasia, etc). The culture war also encompasses issues that don’t even touch tangentially on sex: can we call Christmas trees Christmas trees? What do we do about illegal immigration? What is our policy on drugs? Is affirmative action necessary or racist? Is America worth admiring or shunning? Is diversity a source of strength, or does it lead to Balkanization? Should religion be welcome in the public square or expelled from it? Should we censor and control content when it comes to entertainment and profanity, or should it be anything goes? All of these are issues that deal with both policy and culture.

Stoic Patriot on July 30, 2014 at 4:39 PM

Great piece. Delinking sex from procreation causes a lot of problems that we always don’t think about.

For instance, before the pill, this would be common sense for married and unmarried couples: Only sleep with someone you wouldn’t mind becoming the father/mother of your children. Common sense. People were a lot more discriminating!

But now people are looking for entirely different characteristics in sex partners outside of any thought of parenting roles … not someone who could be a good role model, but someone who would satisfy them.

And when the pill fails, we have abortions, rampant illegitimacy, and the inherent social breakdown.

Not opposed to birth control, but the Pope makes sense!

Nicole Coulter on July 30, 2014 at 4:47 PM

And some of the right, so long as “drink, smoke, shop at Walmart and watch NASCAR” are also included.

jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 4:13 PM

They are not really equivalent. The right may be too sure of what they believe they know, but the left is far more nihilistic. Thus to a native man in a nihilistic space, no one can prescribe for anybody and everybody has the “right to choose”. Pleasure–the more extreme the better–is the only definable, concrete, good.

You have to eat and poop. And you want to have sex or get a buzz. These are incontestable goods, which have to, by their immediacy, be considered in balance with all the “theoretical goods”.

Conservatives like to drink and smoke and shop at Walmart and watch NASCAR because men have rights, among which is right to pursue what we enjoy, and they enjoy those things.

Of course, the “who’s to say?” liberals of the previous decades have turned into the “You’re just a hater” liberals/progressives of the current wave, by their destabilizing of social norms to populist reconstruction of shame and social norming in the teens. But their manifest authoritarianism aside, their ability to change the direction of society has relied on their ability to make moral choices seem arbitrary imposition.

Axeman on July 30, 2014 at 4:56 PM

The solution to out-of-wedlock birth isn’t to promote some extreme version of the 1950s where women were only maids and brood mares, which is what religious conservatives are after. The answer to one extreme isn’t to promote the other extreme.

Illinidiva on July 30, 2014 at 2:45 PM

You’re hanging out with the wrong religious conservatives then. The ones I know are all for women having careers if they so choose.

I’m no big fan of the Catholic church myself, having major theological differences with it (I have Baptist leanings) but Christianity has generally been a force for equality, rights, and justice over time compared with pagan society, for the most part, not just racially, but between the sexes as well. It is only when the Church, speaking as the overall body of believers rather than the Catholic Church entity, strayed from the Bible that it did not.

Othniel on July 30, 2014 at 5:03 PM

Not Catholic, and me and the wife have been using the rhythm method for years. We’ve done other forms, to the same success level, too.

Haven’t you watched popular film/tv, about a woman trying to conceive? The “humor” comes from the women having “make a baby” right there and now because their “temperature is up” (i.e. ovulating).

We used the rhythm method to get pregnant for both our kids too.

Yes, there are gray days where you don’t know if ovulation has started or not, or finished. But it’s not the crap shoot I thought it was when I was younger.

Axeman on July 30, 2014 at 4:00 PM

Yes, but you are trying to conceive. Quite different if you are trying to avoid pregnancy. The issue is whether it is as effective as the Pill or other forms of birth control. It isn’t. The whole idea is that the Catholic Church wants women knocked up and barefoot in the kitchen.

Birth Control is what it is…The intentional means to control the possibility of pregnancy…either to promote a pregnancy…to extinguish a pregnancy or to prevent a pregnancy.

This is either done through the conscious adoption of avoidance behavior such as abstention to avoid or engagement to promote…or through the use of of artificial agents and or procedures for the desired result.

Facts are stubborn things – John Adams

workingclass artist on July 30, 2014 at 4:04 PM

It isn’t effective. Birth control should prevent pregnancy. I certainly would never use it as a birth control method.

Illinidiva on July 30, 2014 at 5:15 PM

Natural Family Planning is also accepted by the Roman Catholic Church as a form of birth control along with the Rhythm Method. I had to take a class on it when my wife and I got married. At the time my wife was astonished that she never learned these things about her body before. It should be noted that the class was directed toward HELPING a couple have a child, not preventing it.

We used it for two years as a way to prevent pregnancy. We had many months of data about my wife’s temperatures to accurately predict the right time to not procreate.

ConDem on July 30, 2014 at 5:19 PM

You’re hanging out with the wrong religious conservatives then. The ones I know are all for women having careers if they so choose.

I’m no big fan of the Catholic church myself, having major theological differences with it (I have Baptist leanings) but Christianity has generally been a force for equality, rights, and justice over time compared with pagan society, for the most part, not just racially, but between the sexes as well. It is only when the Church, speaking as the overall body of believers rather than the Catholic Church entity, strayed from the Bible that it did not.

Othniel on July 30, 2014 at 5:03 PM

The Church has effectively excluded women from the priesthood and other positions of authority. Women, including nuns, are at the bottom of the heap and our voices are regularly disregarded when it comes to the Church because of the Church’s hierarchical nature. The Church is run by elderly men, many of whom are gay, and all of whom have never been married. They have no understanding of woman or women’s concerns. Most of the modern theology on women was written by JPII, who was a misogynist and felt that a women’s main role was to be a brood mare and a wife. Even Pope Francis, who is more progressive on many issues, cannot talk about women without either sounding condescending or cracking misogynist jokes. Humane Vitae is probably the most extreme example of the Catholic Church’s anti-woman stance; it doesn’t allow the woman to use birth control and essentially tells her her only worth is as a brood mare. As a result, 90%+ of Catholic women decided to ignore the Church and use real birth control methods. Because Paul VI took such an extreme, 1950s stance and chose to send women back to the kitchen, the Church lost its ability to act as a reasonable alternative to the modern culture. The modern sexualized culture is much more appealing to most people (both men and women) than the extreme 1950s sexual mentality of the Catholic Church.

Illinidiva on July 30, 2014 at 5:29 PM

I hate to break up a good conspiracy-fest but, really, the point of the sexual revolution was sex, not the destruction of the family or the construction of a monolithic state — indeed, the state was the enemy.

Given that there have been unintended consequences, but we libertines — like Joseph Smith and the panoply of Mormon elders — just want to sleep around.

And then we all get married and settle down and raise — wait for it — families.

urban elitist on July 30, 2014 at 5:32 PM

…and you’re a out of your mind if you think i’m going to respect a chimaerical discussion of biochemical science that entertains obviously and provably false hypotheses about global floods and “pure” dna until 4000 years ago.

jaxisaneurophysicist on July 30, 2014 at 3:52 PM

.
Surely a learned superior such as yourself would not react with incredulous hyperbole to a figure of speech, as if that figure of speech were a literal statement. SHEESH.

brentspolemics on July 30, 2014 at 4:07 PM

.
You have the option of sneering, for now.

Time is coming when that option will be taken away, in the most absolute and eternal sense … “literally.”

listens2glenn on July 30, 2014 at 5:32 PM

I hate to break up a good conspiracy-fest but, really, the point of the sexual revolution was sex, not the destruction of the family or the construction of a monolithic state — indeed, the state was the enemy.

Given that there have been unintended consequences, but we libertines — like Joseph Smith and the panoply of Mormon elders — just want to sleep around.

And then we all get married and settle down and raise — wait for it — families.

urban elitist on July 30, 2014 at 5:32 PM

.
For the “commoners” it was all about unbridled hedonistic gratification, including but not limited to sex.
But the “agitators” of the 1960s who spearheaded this “revolution”, it absolutely was about the destruction of the family, and ultimately defiance of the recognition of God.

listens2glenn on July 30, 2014 at 5:40 PM

My inlaws went to college in the 40′s;
– mother-in-law tells many stories about how there were only a handful of men on campus because of the war, and they were in high demand because they were vastly outnumbered by the women in attendance;
– father-in-law tells of working his way through school in the kitche n at a sorority house where he at times felt used (lol) by what were apparently great numbers of girls that were constantly looking for guys to get busy with, as it were;

Can’t wait to tell them that the liberals here are certain that:
– no one in their day even apparently knew about sex;
– women didn’t actually attend college back then, apparently.

Midas on July 30, 2014 at 5:40 PM

I hate to break up a good conspiracy-fest but, really, the point of the sexual revolution was sex, not the destruction of the family or the construction of a monolithic state — indeed, the state was the enemy.

Given that there have been unintended consequences, but we libertines — like Joseph Smith and the panoply of Mormon elders — just want to sleep around.

And then we all get married and settle down and raise — wait for it — families.

urban elitist on July 30, 2014 at 5:32 PM

What an astoundingly fact free set of statements.

For the “commoners” it was all about unbridled hedonistic gratification, including but not limited to sex.
But the “agitators” of the 1960s who spearheaded this “revolution”, it absolutely was about the destruction of the family, and ultimately defiance of the recognition of God.

listens2glenn on July 30, 2014 at 5:40 PM

Yes.

Of course a lot of men liked the sexual revolution – they could get sex without having to be responsible.

But urban elitist really demonstrates the blinders lefties have regarding the ruinous failure of their policies of the last 60+ years. Everything’s fine man! (Don’t confuse urban elitist with actual data about the breakdown in family formation).

gwelf on July 30, 2014 at 5:44 PM

Man, the welfare checks and talking points memos must’ve been in the mail – all the f*ckwitted liberal wombats are out in force today.

Midas on July 30, 2014 at 5:44 PM

I thought this was HA, not Vanity Fair.

Sherman1864 on July 30, 2014 at 5:46 PM

The problem with this is that it happened 10 years ago in Ohio and it doesn’t appear that, at that time, Ohio law required reporting unless PP reasonably believed that there was abuse. Depending on what was then told, PP may not have been required to report it.

jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 4:09 PM

You just can’t help it, can you?

Her age, when first brought in – 12 years old.

Do you honestly think that the law in Ohio reasonably permits a 10 year to have sex where it is not statutory rape -or even at the age of 12 where pregnancy is proof of intercourse? Particularly with a partner who is not in close proximity in age (Romeo / Juliet type laws?)

In Ohio , where the victim is under the age of 13, unless the consensual partner is 13-17, it is illegal under all cases. And for those 13-17, if the act…
was
forced, coerced, or the perpetrator is in a position of
power over the victim, like a teacher, coach, parent and/or guardian.
…would be illegal and statutory rape.

Any responsible person, seeing a pregnant 12 year old should have notified the authorities immediately. Those authorities would then have investigated to determine if criminal charges were warranted under Ohio law.

That you make excuses for the three facilities that didn’t is as reprehensible as their failure to not report her condition to the authorities.

Athos on July 30, 2014 at 4:36 PM

You’ll note the prior law was changed in 2004. I can’t find it now, but it didn’t say what you thought it should. What you posted is current (or recently changed) law.

And you’re confusing statutory rape with the duty to report abuse–

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2151.421v1

jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 5:47 PM

But I was too harsh.

My apologies on a thoughtful article.

Better to read before you comment.

Sherman1864 on July 30, 2014 at 5:49 PM

The people that cite “Puritans,” act as though people were utterly ignorant about sex in the 50s, or act as though the 50s were some sort of hell for women are idiots who are abysmally ignorant. The current bunch did not discover sex, and knowledge of sex on the part of people who are now in their 80s was far greater than the idiots we see posting here are willing to admit.

Quartermaster on July 30, 2014 at 3:38 PM

This is so true. I blame the displays of ignorance in this thread on the schools and Hollywood.

DisneyFan on July 30, 2014 at 5:53 PM

Dear Illinidiva,
Just so you know, I worked in Mother Teresa’s birth control clinic in Calcutta for 2 months. The success rate for the women coming to the clinic and using the NFP method was 94% in preventing pregnancy. Just a little stubborn fact. I agree with the author BTW. It’s all about sex, because it’s all about the narcissistic desires people have been taught to cultivate. The left wants sex any time, any where with any one and damn the consequences. The right would like you to be chaste in your sex life and take responsibility for the consequences of your actions.

Oh, and my grandmother owned and operated a blue printing business in for 40 years beginning in the 1940′s.

Cheers

IdrilofGondolin on July 30, 2014 at 5:53 PM

You’ll note the prior law was changed in 2004. I can’t find it now, but it didn’t say what you thought it should. What you posted is current (or recently changed) law.

And you’re confusing statutory rape with the duty to report abuse–

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2151.421v1

jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 5:47 PM

That’s a great point. PP just knew about a 12 year old being raped but they weren’t statutorily required to report it so they’re still blameless. You and PP can take the moral high ground now. PP was just providing health services for women. Hey, if that means performing abortions on 12 year olds who were raped brought in by their attackers then so be it. It’s for the children. It’s healthcare.

But I don’t want to be forced to buy some woman’s birth control and it’s War On Womynses!

gwelf on July 30, 2014 at 5:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3