Why Are Men Dominating the Debate About Birth Control for Women?

[Journey]

While I do agree with your post, logicdoes plays a part in this also. These same experts will tell you that since BC has become widely avaliable more sexual activities take place....logic says: more sex = more problems.

I would be interested in any data supporting the idea that available birth control = more sexual activity. According the Planned Parenthood, "Many studies have proved the opposite. The latest was recently published three year ago in The American Journal of Public Health. It showed that kids in schools that distributed condoms were less likely to have sexual intercourse than kids at schools that don't distribute condoms.The study also suggests that kids in high schools with condom programs were more likely to use condoms. Young people in other high schools were more likely to use other kinds of birth control. But only latex and female condoms reduce the risk of sexually transmitted infections. The fact is that kids in schools that distribute condoms are less likely to have sexual intercourse and are less likely to get a sexually transmitted infection."

If highly hormonely-charged, immature kids are not increasing their sexual activities when birth control is available, one would think that same result would translate to an older population as well.

 

[rolling7]

I would be interested in any data supporting the idea that available birth control = more sexual activity. According the Planned Parenthood, "Many studies have proved the opposite. The latest was recently published three year ago in The American Journal of Public Health. It showed that kids in schools that distributed condoms were less likely to have sexual intercourse than kids at schools that don't distribute condoms.The study also suggests that kids in high schools with condom programs were more likely to use condoms. Young people in other high schools were more likely to use other kinds of birth control. But only latex and female condoms reduce the risk of sexually transmitted infections. The fact is that kids in schools that distribute condoms are less likely to have sexual intercourse and are less likely to get a sexually transmitted infection."

If highly hormonely-charged, immature kids are not increasing their sexual activities when birth control is available, one would think that same result would translate to an older population as well.

There is no need for data...only logic. If you were to go back in time(i.e. 50s/60s) you would find a lot less kids having sex as there was not much contraceptives avaliable. Also there were far fewer kids having kids.
Also you can look at the fact that kids are having intercourse and other sexual activities far earlier in their life today then back then. Although I do not feel that contraceptives play a part into this earlier beginning age, they do in such a way that sex is pervasive (i.e. Monkey see, Monkey do) which comes from the abundance of contraceptives.

Logic would also say that 100% free conctraceptives would reduce much of the unwanted consequencies but again logic would say "100% free" would have to be fair and equally applied (i.e. 100% free hearing aids for all deaf). Where does it end where society provides all the conveniences for those who refuse to take responsibilities of and for themselves?

 

[DeafCaroline]

There is no need for data...only logic. If you were to go back in time(i.e. 50s/60s) you would find a lot less kids having sex as there was not much contraceptives avaliable. Also there were far fewer kids having kids.
Also you can look at the fact that kids are having intercourse and other sexual activities far earlier in their life today then back then. Although I do not feel that contraceptives play a part into this earlier beginning age, they do in such a way that sex is pervasive (i.e. Monkey see, Monkey do) which comes from the abundance of contraceptives.

Logic would also say that 100% free conctraceptives would reduce much of the unwanted consequencies but again logic would say "100% free" would have to be fair and equally applied (i.e. 100% free hearing aids for all deaf). Where does it end where society provides all the conveniences for those who refuse to take responsibilities of and for themselves?

Using your logic that more contraceptives means more pregnancies the teen pregnancy rate in Netherlands would be at 100%.

You're so way off and out of touch.

 

[rolling7]

Using your logic that more contraceptives means more pregnancies the teen pregnancy rate in Netherlands would be at 100%.

You're so way off and out of touch.

Go back to the '50s and '60s and find the rates of the number of teen pregnancies and compare those numbers of today's. Allowing for population growth, today's teens have way more %-wise.

apples/oranges
Netherlands/America
two different standards of living, so no comparison

 

[DeafCaroline]

Go back to the '50s and '60s and find the rates of the number of teen pregnancies and compare those numbers of today's. Allowing for population growth, today's teens have way more %-wise.

apples/oranges
Netherlands/America
two different standards of living, so no comparison

forget it. you are making no sense. as usual.

 

[Journey]

There is no need for data...only logic. If you were to go back in time(i.e. 50s/60s) you would find a lot less kids having sex as there was not much contraceptives avaliable. Also there were far fewer kids having kids.
Also you can look at the fact that kids are having intercourse and other sexual activities far earlier in their life today then back then. Although I do not feel that contraceptives play a part into this earlier beginning age, they do in such a way that sex is pervasive (i.e. Monkey see, Monkey do) which comes from the abundance of contraceptives.

Logic would also say that 100% free conctraceptives would reduce much of the unwanted consequencies but again logic would say "100% free" would have to be fair and equally applied (i.e. 100% free hearing aids for all deaf). Where does it end where society provides all the conveniences for those who refuse to take responsibilities of and for themselves?

No need to data/facts, only your 'logic'? :roll: As for your idea that kids in the 50's and 60s were having less sex and there were fewer pregnancies - have you factored in the fact that teen sex and teen pregnancies were largely under-reported. Sex was not openly discussed, unwanted or unexpected pregnancies were dealt with in 'private homes for unwed mothers' or 'back alley abortions'? The sexual revolution was not so much about the freedom to have more sex, it was about the freedom to let it be known that sex was happening.

 

[TWA]

No need to data/facts, only your 'logic'? :roll: As for your idea that kids in the 50's and 60s were having less sex and there were fewer pregnancies - have you factored in the fact that teen sex and teen pregnancies were largely under-reported. Sex was not openly discussed, unwanted or unexpected pregnancies were dealt with in 'private homes for unwed mothers' or 'back alley abortions'? The sexual revolution was not so much about the freedom to have more sex, it was about the freedom to let it be known that sex was happening.

Bingo. This post 100%.

Not a whole lot has changed, really, in terms of teen pregnancies, etc. In fact, I would guess that if we knew the real numbers (as Journey correctly points out, teen pregnancies were not really recorded nor discussed in the 50s 60s), we'd probably see a higher rate of promiscuity back then, and we'd probably see a lot more instances of sexual coercion, harassment, and rape against females (all of which was hardly ever reported back then).

 

[rolling7]

Bingo. This post 100%.

Not a whole lot has changed, really, in terms of teen pregnancies, etc. In fact, I would guess that if we knew the real numbers (as Journey correctly points out, teen pregnancies were not really recorded nor discussed in the 50s 60s), we'd probably see a higher rate of promiscuity back then, and we'd probably see a lot more instances of sexual coercion, harassment, and rape against females (all of which was hardly ever reported back then).

A lot has changed. As you posted, Journey has not been able to post a rate of pregnancies for the '50s and '60s but I lived back then and I know what the kids thought. We did not dare think about having sex (although the urge was there) until we were out of our parents home. That was the prevailing attitude back then. Parents did instruct their own kids in sex education, as oppose to sex education in schools today. Parents did tell their kids NOT to have sex, as oppose to parents today saying: "Use protection".

Perhaps you have not heard that Houston is #1 when it comes to sexual slavery (a new word for sexual coercion) whereas back in the days they had it but just not minors as oppose to the many, many minors being sex slaves today.

Harassment! That is a joke back in the days. I had plenty of buddies who would beat your butt for harassment of their sister.

Rape against females! The numbers have been and always wil be under-reported, so this is one issue that is lose/lose in any debate.

 

[Journey]

A lot has changed. As you posted, Journey has not been able to post a rate of pregnancies for the '50s and '60s but I lived back then and I know what the kids thought. We did not dare think about having sex (although the urge was there) until we were out of our parents home. That was the prevailing attitude back then. Parents did instruct their own kids in sex education, as oppose to sex education in schools today. Parents did tell their kids NOT to have sex, as oppose to parents today saying: "Use protection".

Perhaps you have not heard that Houston is #1 when it comes to sexual slavery (a new word for sexual coercion) whereas back in the days they had it but just not minors as oppose to the many, many minors being sex slaves today.

Harassment! That is a joke back in the days. I had plenty of buddies who would beat your butt for harassment of their sister.

Rape against females! The numbers have been and always wil be under-reported, so this is one issue that is lose/lose in any debate.

An idyllic way of life - teens and unmarried adults following their parents instructions not to have sex - unfortunately not a reality for so many, then or now. Your own personal circumstance should not stand in the way of you understanding and accepting the facts of sexual activity amongst the young and the unmarried. Perhaps this article will help give you new insight to what really was going on in backseats, parks, dorms and homes where the parents were out for the day or evening. Extracts - "Silent " Sexual Revolution Began In The 1940's and '50s

 

[rolling7]

I have long said that mankind can NOT use right/wrong...legal/illegal...moral/immoral...good/bad
as a standard because these are always changing with the times
Nevertheless, personal accountability is supreme, other than Mother Nature
because what is natural never, ever changes.

So your link does nothing to change my mind, it only re-enforces the prevailing attitude that mankind controls nature, whereas that is totally false.
Mankind wants to think it can not control the consequences of sexual activities but only Mother Nature is in control, always has been and always will be.

 

[Banjo]

If people actually think that less teenagers had sex and got pregnant back in the ol' days, they are kidding themselves. A lot of babies were given up for adoption without anyone's knowledge. They often would make their daughters stay home or wear baggy clothes until the baby is born. A lot of mothers also would take their daughters' children and raise them as their own.

Seriously, get real. It was much more of a social taboo back then. A family's name would be put to shame and disgraced if a teenage girl is found to be pregnant.

 

[TWA]

I have long said that mankind can NOT use right/wrong...legal/illegal...moral/immoral...good/bad
as a standard because these are always changing with the times
Nevertheless, personal accountability is supreme, other than Mother Nature
because what is natural never, ever changes.

So your link does nothing to change my mind, it only re-enforces the prevailing attitude that mankind controls nature, whereas that is totally false.
Mankind wants to think it can not control the consequences of sexual activities but only Mother Nature is in control, always has been and always will be.

Oh yes, I believe you've used this crackpot idea ("nature never, ever changes") as a way to justify your homophobia (i.e. homosexuality is not natural because of the sex acts it involves), among other things.

I got one word for ya: EVOLUTION.

I don't recall if you're of the belief that the world is only six thousand years old or not, but regardless, can you please answer me this one question: Why do men have nipples?

 

[rolling7]

If people actually think that less teenagers had sex and got pregnant back in the ol' days, they are kidding themselves. A lot of babies were given up for adoption without anyone's knowledge. They often would make their daughters stay home or wear baggy clothes until the baby is born. A lot of mothers also would take their daughters' children and raise them as their own.

Seriously, get real. It was much more of a social taboo back then. A family's name would be put to shame and disgraced if a teenage girl is found to be pregnant.

The taboo, shame and disgrace are what helped to prevent the destruction of many young girls life. With the wide open apathy of today maybe it is time to being them back.

 

[saywhatkid]

I don't recall if you're of the belief that the world is only six thousand years old or not, but regardless, can you please answer me this one question: Why do men have nipples?

So men know which way to walk, like a GPS.

 

[Banjo]

The taboo, shame and disgrace are what helped to prevent the destruction of many young girls life. With the wide open apathy of today maybe it is time to being them back.

They were just as common back then as they are today. Only it was kept as a secret back then.

 

[rolling7]

Oh yes, I believe you've used this crackpot idea ("nature never, ever changes" as a way to justify your homophobia (i.e. homosexuality is not natural because of the sex acts it involves), among other things.

I got one word for ya: EVOLUTION.

I don't recall if you're of the belief that the world is only six thousand years old or not, but regardless, can you please answer me this one question: Why do men have nipples?

On conception all of us are female and between the fourth and fifth month the sexual identity kicks in. Only the genitals determined male/female and the nipples remain for both genders. The female breastfeeds but the male breast also have corresponding underdeveloped glands and can secret.

 

[rolling7]

They were just as common back then as they are today. Only it was kept as a secret back then.

Correct you are. But there was no apathy back then.

 

[TWA]

On conception all of us are female and between the fourth and fifth month the sexual identity kicks in. Only the genitals determined male/female and the nipples remain for both genders. The female breastfeeds but the male breast also have corresponding underdeveloped glands and can secret.

You gave me the how, not the why. So I'll ask again: what is the purpose of men having a nipples and milk glands, albeit underdeveloped ones?

Also, we are male or female as soon as the DNA from the egg and sperm mix. It just doesn't become possible to determine until the 18-20 weeks of pregnancy.

 

[rolling7]

Oh yes, I believe you've used this crackpot idea ("nature never, ever changes" as a way to justify your homophobia (i.e. homosexuality is not natural because of the sex acts it involves), among other things.

I got one word for ya: EVOLUTION.

I don't recall if you're of the belief that the world is only six thousand years old or not, but regardless, can you please answer me this one question: Why do men have nipples?

Sorry I had to come back.

For me the earth is millions of years old and mankind is younger but still millions of years also.

Evolution is the perfection of Mother Nature. In other words apperance changes but the purpose does not. There is a reason for everything Mother Nature is doing and mankind can not win at trying to control anything at all. The more mankind messes up the more difficult our lives are.


Here is one for you.

What is the best invention of man? The light bulb.
Because it allows man to move around in the dark.


What is the worst invention of man? The light bulb.
Because man had misused it. Witness the fact that we use it to become a 24 hour day of activities. Man, by Mother Nature's rules, is not a 24 hour creature, we are meant to get up with the sun and go down with the sun. Hence, the misuse had result in a ton of problems (hint: psychiatry problems).

 

[TWA]

Sorry I had to come back.

For me the earth is millions of years old and mankind is younger but still millions of years also.

Evolution is the perfection of Mother Nature. In other words apperance changes but the purpose does not. There is a reason for everything Mother Nature is doing and mankind can not win at trying to control anything at all. The more mankind messes up the more difficult our lives are.


Here is one for you.

What is the best invention of man? The light bulb.
Because it allows man to move around in the dark.


What is the worst invention of man? The light bulb.
Because man had misused it. Witness the fact that we use it to become a 24 hour day of activities. Man, by Mother Nature's rules, is not a 24 hour creature, we are meant to get up with the sun and go down with the sun. Hence, the misuse had result in a ton of problems (hint: psychiatry problems).

I think people were staying up late long before the lightbulb. . . .

The greatest human invention is the printing press. Bar none. The worst? Probably gunpowder.