Skip to comments.Relationships Market After 50 Years of The Pill
Posted on 09/29/2010 8:33:41 AM PDT by marshmallow
FAR from bringing equality, contraception has redistributed power away from women, says George Pell.
THIS year is the 50th anniversary of the contraceptive pill, a development that has changed Western life enormously, in some ways most people do not understand.
While majority opinion regards the pill as a significant social benefit for giving women greater control of their fertility, the consensus is not overwhelming, especially among women.
A May CBS News poll of 591 adult Americans found that 59 per cent of men and 54 per cent of women believed the pill had made women's lives better.
In an article in the ecumenical journal First Things that month, North American economist Timothy Reichert approached the topic with "straight-forward microeconomic reasoning", concluding that contraception had triggered a redistribution of wealth and power from women and children to men.
Applying the insights of the market, he points out that relative scarcity or abundance affects behaviour in important ways and that significant technological changes, such as the pill, have broad social effects. His basic thesis is that the pill has divided what was once a single mating market into two markets.
This first is a market for sexual relationships, which most young men and women frequent early in their adult life. The second is a market for marital or partnership relationships, where most participate later on.
Because the pill means that participation in the sex market need not result in pregnancy, the costs of having premarital and extra-marital sex have been lowered.
The old single mating market was populated by roughly the same number of men and women, but this is no longer the case in the two new markets.
Because most women want to have children, they enter the marriage market earlier than men, often by their early 30s. Men are under no.........
(Excerpt) Read more at theaustralian.com.au ...
...rhythm method users, etc...
Yes, I get it, I get it...sex shouldn't be fun! But sticking your head in the sand won't change the fact that The Pill simply removed procreation from sex, not changed it to recreational.
When it becomes a legitimate organized recreational activity, will there be leagues and team shirts?
59% of the men...
sadly, that is drs standard approach with womens’ health issues, they just want to mask the symptoms and send you on your way.
I had a similar experience, and it’s extremely frustrating.
Your arguments seem to be based on either straw men like this or . . .
sex shouldn't be fun
. . . misdirection like this or . . .
when you might have been pushing
. . . ad hominem like this.
The reality is that the pill removed the meaning and responsibility of heterosexual intercourse and made it into a purely recreational activity.
Marriage and the family, and therefore all of traditional civil society, are based on sexual intercourse being an essential part of life and not a tangential, pleasant diversion.
Men rule the world.
Women rule the men.
This was clear ages ago. The Cardinal does a great job of clarifying what has been reality for a long time.
That’s what I always thought. Not as true today, though.
People don’t seem to realize that you merely gave the timeless message of teen relationships between the sexes.
That is why I believe that when they invent a simple, effective pill for males, that girls will convert quickly to abstinence, to regain their power within their relations with the boys.
Thank you Ansel12!
The point is, my girls hold the power of THEIR lives as long as they do not have premarital sex. Anyone who believes that premarital sex does improve the chances of babies and STDs, is probably deluded.
Should a girl open her legs and get one of the above, she loses her power over her own life. She must treat her STD, she must tell him and anyone that either had sex with, plus doctors, plus future partners or with a baby, the control goes to him. Will he marry her, will he support the baby, will he live with her decision to stay pregnant and adopt out the baby? Will he demand to keep that child when she wants to give him/her to a good home?
AND if she keeps that baby, he will be in her life for 18 years.
Seriously, does anyone think that a celibate girl is NOT powerful? Having the power to choose one’s own destiny is a VERY conservative principal and I’m surprised that anyone would have a problem with it.
Like I said, I don’t disagree with you in principle ... I’m just not sure that’s how I would’ve phrased it. There is nothing wrong with controlling your own destiny. There are numerous and indisputable moral and logical problems with premarital sex.
But, it seems to me the conflating of sex and power could cause unique problems later on. Sex in marriage should not be about power. A girl that has been taught throughout her life that she gains power over men by keeping her legs closed may have trouble reversing that particular thought process once she is married. “Keep your legs closed to be powerful” does not seem to me to be a mindset that will lead to a particularly healthy marital relationship.
Ah, but you don’t consider their Christian upbringing in it and the example I show with their own father. Dad always has the last word, as head of the household. They see how marriage works. In marriage, power is not held by one spouse or another, and works best when both work together.
They see what makes a good marriage. I was given the same advice by my parents, remained a virgin until 34 with men throwing themselves at me because of my reputation, and was choosy enough to wait for a wonderful husband (and great kids). He knows he got something special from me and appreciates it.
More conservatives should be telling their daughters that BC doesn’t cut it and the risks associated with premarital sex.
Fair enough. A good example can overcome a great many things ... though a good example of sexuality-in-marriage is a bit difficult to display with discretion.
I agree that conservatives should be telling their daughters about the risks of pre-marital sex and that BC is insufficient. I just disagree with the “you gain power when your legs are closed” message specifically, as I am not sure it paints a particularly healthy picture of Christian sexuality within marriage.
To each his own on how the message is phrased.
So I read Reichert's original article, and Cardinal Pell did do it justice; however the journal First Things is a journal to advance religious ideas, and Reichert is trying to advance a viewpoint rather than being making an actual well-developed economic analysis. For example Reichert asserts (does not provide evidence for) that contraception means that women face "fierce" competition for men once they enter the "marriage market," and "this means that the 'deals they cut' become worse for them and better for men."
Simple logic tells us that every man who wants to get married still has to find a women, so men and women have about the same power from that standpoint.
In reality social and legal changes over the last few decades not caused by contraception have led to much greater power for women in relationships and marriage; for example GOMEZ V. PEREZ, 409 U. S. 535 (1973) reversed ancient common law, the wisdom of many generations, that if a woman wanted a man to support her child, she had to get married; the Court did so on 14th Amendment "equal protection" grounds.
Courts have become much more "woman friendly" in other ways also. Today a married woman with children can have an affair, divorce her husband, kick him out of the house, and her cuckolded husband must make large child support payments to support her and her boyfriend, who is now living with his children. This is common
And the cheated-on husband, when he tries to re-enter the marriage "market" is going to do so in an impoverished condition.
GOMEZ V. PEREZ is just one element in the social/legal changes that have made marriage more risky for men. The rise in the age of marriage that Reichert attributes to "the pill" could be attributed to these heightened risks and costs to men, and on the other side to the ability of women to access the benefits, such as child support, plus money and goods from welfare programs, that once could only have been accessed by her in a marriage.
If the Catholic Church wanted to help restore marriage using economic incentives it would advocate the restoration of common law in terms of child support, and advocate the end of government welfare programs, and only support private charity for "the deserving poor," ie widows and orphans. But the liberation theology influenced Church is supporting programs that are opposite of what would be required to restore economic incentives to marriage.
There is more conversation in our house than “one liners” just as there was in my home growing up.
My mother was very open about sex to my sisters from their engagements on, even relating her own sex life with my dad (I remember hearing them talk as I am much younger than my siblings). There is nothing I will not discuss with my daughters. It may be uncomfortable from time to time (as with their questions of “how” lesbians have sex) but I put on a good front, speak with confidence and cringe later! Because that’s my job.
It would seem the second British invasion caused more damage than the first.
Excellent comments on this thread netmilsmom!
Lol! I doubt many young girls will trust a boy to take a pill daily.
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.