Posted on 10/29/2004 7:47:22 AM PDT by gobucks
Why are our boys failing to grow up? One reason is the incredible impact of the birth control pill on society, especially in how women are deceived by its so-called benefits.
These days fertility clinics are overflowing with shell-shocked middle aged men and women. Of course, most of them spent years not questioning those 'benefits'. If you have ever sat in one, you'll know the mood of the waiting room is unlike any other doctor's office. The eyes of many of the women look like caged rabbits in a research lab, waiting for that next unexpected jab. The dutiful husbands frequently look tired, really tired. And they don't usually look forward to the visit to that room where they have to provide, ah, the 'sample'.
It's usually a really clean room, except for the well thumbed stack of magazines. Those, of course, are helpfully provided to the men such that they can shorten the time required to collect the 'sample'.
Frequently the doc comes back w/ the results and says to him, 'things are swimmingly great for you'. Then he intones softly to her, 'but you, ah, sorry. You have some ovulation issues. But the drugs we have today, and even the IVF options ... there's a lot of hope left'.
Hope. That is what the fertility clinics peddle. Lots of hope. A goodly number of folks spin the wheel and score of course. But a huge number of women and men experience these office visits as something far worse than what any dentist could inflict. Imagine getting a root canal over and over, and the dentist clucking gently, 'well, we'll try again next month'. Ever notice that success rates at fertility clinics are not discussed that much?
Crazy, our world is just crazy. In 1904, though things were not necessarily 'better' in many ways, they were not crazy in this regard. Little boys and girls witnessed during their youth a great reality about sex: it was powerful. A boy, long before puberty, usually watched how when a woman entered the sexual world, married or not, she usually got pregnant. A girl even more so recognized that sex would forever change her existence.
As a result, both witnessed a reality regarding what happened in a boy's life once he went through puberty and was faced with that need to fulfill the daily (hourly?) sex requirement. He simply knew that getting a woman to provide relief for that issue wasn't going to come without a cost: feeding a new mouth.
Women recognized their role, thus, in the matter of translating boys to men. They knew that on the wedding day, a new birth took place when the man took her hand and renamed her, in just the same way as when she would first hold the hand of her new baby he would also name, and shortly thereafter whisper that same last name into her newborn child's ear.
In 1904, men routinely handled the naming responsibility with ease. Not anymore, given how even the act of naming has become so politicized. However, that doesn't change the fact that naming is an act undertaken by men, not boys. Women used to understand that, until the Pill came along. Within a few weeks of that watershed event, boys and girls suddenly learned that sex could be separated from children. What was not announced was the deliberate effort to inject in their minds that the sex act was henceforth to be forever separated from the act of naming.
Boys now could work, but as they pleased. The idea that they would have to work sufficiently hard enough to support a family became optional. And women allowed them to buy into this ridiculous idea, because of the clap trap they were being sold. Manhood, the responsiblity kind of manhood, therefore became optional, and boys learned that they could sell their sperm on the open market for about 50 dollars a shot. Recently it's gotten a lot worse ... young women are being told they can sell their eggs at about 3000 bucks per egg - especially if they have the 'right' genes. Crazy.
In 1904, a woman would look at her suitor, and state that no matter how much he sweet talked her, he better first be able to provide. The woman's Dad, usually a supervisory type (because in 1904, that was a smart way to be if you had a daughter), would give him the same message. That was the reality in 1904 ... sex created kids. Thus, there was a built in incentive for boys to cast off the downsides of boyhood and assume the role of 'man'. They got the reward of regular sex, but attached was the reality of regular work.
And so a woman had a built in incentive to encourage boys to become men in 1904. But today, the Pill deceives them into thinking that 'role' is optional. Oh, some girls wise up at a young age, and get off the pill. They continue to date, but soon enough the guy hears, 'no sex bub, I'm not on the pill'. The 'guy', is suddenly repositioned, by her, to decide if he is really interested, thus marking a step out of guyhood into manhood. Women out there frequently 'get' this is actually good for society.
But too many other girls wise up around 32 or 33 years of age, and way to many wise up even later. That tick-tock sound eventually gets to be deafening, awake or asleep. Suddenly, what seemed to be no big deal was a really big deal - and the one resource that could help them 'relax' and feel secure about getting pregnant ... a man who will be around to protect and provide ... is missing.
The fertility docs all say, hey, you are going to need a low stress environment to get pregnant. Why is that? Well, it turns out stress hormones really do negatively impact the ability to conceive, and carry, a child. And when a woman is alone, guess what? She is stressed, big time.
The marriage that started out so egalitarian at first, with the hyphenated name and all that .... now, he should step up to the plate, and make her feel secure. But instead, he, the guy 'husband' has had lots of practice making her feel lonely.
It just goes on and on, this craziness. But before the Pill, it was simple: sex almost always resulted in a little crying 24/7 bundle of demands and time. The grinding force was always available to help boys put away the boyhood as they struggled into the suit of a man.
In other words, we need our kids, our babies, to help boys grow into men. Our babies are NOT optional. We need our women to understand that they play a central role in the matter of boys becoming men. Selling women on this idea is tough if their Dad was a wreck who never was trustworthy. But that sell must happen, that Dad's failures notwithstanding.
We also need, we conservatives, to understand this: liberals fully understand all this stuff above, in their typical cold calculating ways. They fully understand the key to creating new liberal voters is first and foremost to guard the 'acceptibility' of the pill. It all starts there. Abortion, homosexuality, gay marriage ... all of it a big trojan horse to an extent. It starts with the 'acceptibility' of the Pill, a 'gift of the Greeks'. All the agony currently being experienced in fertility clinics - to a liberal, it's an acceptable Darwinian consequence in the larger fight against what being a Man stands for.
I have told my son, who is a middle schooler, 'stay away from women who take the pill'. I made it clear to him that such a woman will have no interest, ever, in seeing him get rid of his boyhood. Such a woman will be forever content to accept that he would always be a boy trapped in a man's body.
I told him a woman who doesn't take the Pill is a far more interesting creature to pay attention to ... because ultimately, she is capable of loving him more, by seeking to help him grow up.
The next time you are in a plane, and you have the good fortune to be sitting next to a young, pretty woman who is single, snappily dressed in her business consultant blue suit, ask her this question: 'what responsibilities do young women today have in the task of translating boys into men'.
At minimum, I promise you this: the plane ride will seem pretty short. Young pretty women usually love to talk.
Many thanks. FR is like a conservative samizdat factory; I love it here.
Dd, birth control is not a 'modern necessity'. Birth control pills, do however, create 'modern thinking', like your post, and includs a fascination w/ inappropriate images (and I would argue most of those randy types you refer to are libertarians).
And to imply that the purpose of our kids is that they were 'financial assests' completely misses the point of my article, besides being not true. Kids were an attribute of sex and, usually, marriage, period in those days. The financial asset theory is a convenient hindsight-is-20/20 characterization.
Our kids are necessary for our boys to become Men. (Now, being a brit, chances are very, very, VERY good that you're familiar w/ the Premiership League - maybe you are a Chelsea fan?)
In the UK, I have noticed a dramatic drop in interest regarding anything associated w/ the Anglican Church (well under 1 in 10 Brits even think of going to church much less going each sunday..).
I don't think the Pill alone would have done it.
" I don't think the Pill alone would have done it."
agreed; but given the sheer volume of noise about so many conservative subjects, the silence about the Pill is striking. Yet, as an entry point, it shouldn't be I think.
The Pill is the thin edge of the wedge.
Thanks for the info. I'll be sure to tell my wife tonight that 1.) she's not interesting, and 2.) she doesn't love me very much.
Moslems in urban Europe are having large families. If they can do it, why can't we? In fact, if we don't, we're DOOMED.
Don't confuse strong desire ("randy") with loose behavior. Sometimes religous monogamists have the highest sex drives of all.
Don't confuse strong desire ("randy") with loose behavior. Sometimes religous monogamists have the highest sex drives of all.
A kid every nine months?????????? You did not do well in biology????????????? And do you believe pregnant couples no longer have sex??????????
I'm familiar w/ your sarcasm from your previous disagreements with me, so your reply is not interesting and it makes you sound like you are not a grown up.
One wonders 'what you'll be sure' to tell your sons about this 'info'...
"Sometimes religous monogamists have the highest sex drives of all."
I agree ... but I think he's referring to postings by folks who clearly intend to sound like they are NOT religious monogamists....
*shrug* I don't remember dealing with you at all.
so your reply is not interesting and it makes you sound like you are not a grown up.
OK. Next time, don't insult my wife, and I won't have reason to respond.
Pretty good.
As an aside, any "man" that lets his wife use a hyphenated name should turn his member in at the door.
welll done!
Utter nonsense. I didn't need a woman to help me grow up nor have I ever seen any difference between women who take the pil and those that do not.
Many thanks!
'Modernman' ... if being modern means that "I didn't need a woman to help me grow up nor have I ever seen any difference between women who take the pil and those that do not.",
well, then I guess I am quite glad I'm not modern. I needed my mother to help me grow up, and my wife has definitely given me added help to grow up more, thank god.
" OK. Next time, don't insult my wife, and I won't have reason to respond."
oh please. The context of the statement was my son would encounter single women who deliberately choose BCPs as the preferred way of life, and he would be better off choosing to encounter single women who chose NOT to use BCPs as a way of life. I didn't speak about married women (though I have thoughts on this too.)
"As an aside, any "man" that lets his wife use a hyphenated name should turn his member in at the door".
I once spoke to a fellow who served as the admitting official at a hospital that performed sex change ops. I asked to confirm or deny a rumor I had heard: that 99 out 100 sex change ops are men switching to women. He said its true.
Too many men are indeed 'turning in his member'. One wonders what is so burdensome about the equipment they were issued.
I'd agree with that sentiment, but I wonder how he is going to know which women don't take them?
Incidentally, my wife took them when she was single -- for the treatment of severe endometriosis symptoms that would otherwise leave her nearly unable to move one week out of every month.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.