Culture

[NDBoiler]

The Moops conquered what are now Portugal and Southern France. There's a good chance some of your ancestors might have been North African and gulp...Muslim.

FIFY

 

[Irish#1]

South Park savage as always. But those "heritage" tests always confuse me. Are there really people out there who don't know their lineage? I know with absolute certainty that three of my grandparents were 100% French and one of them was 100% Portuguese. My wife knows with absolute certainty that all four of her grandparents were 100% German. We can both trace our families back to Europe and it's not that hard.

Which makes my kids 50% German, 37.5% French, and 12.5% Portuguese. With a Portuguese last name.

And now we know why. lol

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Mark Regnerus just published an article in the WSJ titled "Cheap Sex and the Decline of Marriage":

Kevin, a 24-year-old recent college graduate from Denver, wants to get married someday and is “almost 100% positive” that he will. But not soon, he says, “because I am not done being stupid yet. I still want to go out and have sex with a million girls.” He believes that he’s figured out how to do that:

“Girls are easier to mislead than guys just by lying or just not really caring. If you know what girls want, then you know you should not give that to them until the proper time. If you do that strategically, then you can really have anything you want…whether it’s a relationship, sex, or whatever. You have the control.”

Kevin (not his real name) was one of 100 men and women, from a cross-section of American communities, that my team and I interviewed five years ago as we sought to understand how adults in their 20s and early 30s think about their relationships. He sounds like a jerk. But it’s hard to convince him that his strategy won’t work—because it has, for him and countless other men.

Marriage in the U.S. is in open retreat. As recently as 2000, married 25- to 34-year-olds outnumbered their never-married peers by a margin of 55% to 34%, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. By 2015, the most recent year for which data are available, those estimates had almost reversed, with never-marrieds outnumbering marrieds by 53% to 40%. Young Americans have quickly become wary of marriage.

Many economists and sociologists argue that this flight from marriage is about men’s low wages. If they were higher, the argument goes, young men would have the confidence to marry. But recent research doesn’t support this view. A May 2017 study from the National Bureau of Economic Research, focusing on regions enriched by the fracking boom, found that increased wages in those places did nothing to boost marriage rates.

Another hypothesis blames the decline of marriage on men’s fear of commitment. Maybe they just perceive marriage as a bad deal. But most men, including cads such as Kevin, still expect to marry. They eventually want to fall in love and have children, when their independence becomes less valuable to them. They are waiting longer, however, which is why the median age at marriage for American men has risen steadily and is now approaching 30.

My own research points to a more straightforward and primal explanation for the slowed pace toward marriage: For American men, sex has become rather cheap. As compared to the past, many women today expect little in return for sex, in terms of time, attention, commitment or fidelity. Men, in turn, do not feel compelled to supply these goods as they once did. It is the new sexual norm for Americans, men and women alike, of every age.

This transformation was driven in part by birth control. Its widespread adoption by women in recent decades not only boosted their educational and economic fortunes but also reduced their dependence on men. As the risk of pregnancy radically declined, sex shed many of the social and personal costs that once encouraged women to wait.

These forces have been at work for more than a half-century, since the birth-control pill was invented in 1960, but it seems that our norms and narratives about sexual relationships have finally caught up with the technology. Data collected in 2014 for the “Relationships in America” project—a national survey of over 15,000 adults, ages 18 to 60, that I oversaw for the Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture—asked respondents when they first had sex in their current or most recent relationship. After six months of dating? After two? The most common experience—reported by 32% of men under 40—was having sex with their current partner before the relationship had begun. This is sooner than most women we interviewed would prefer.

The birth-control pill is not the only sexual technology that has altered expectations. Online porn has made sexual experience more widely and easily available too. A laptop never says no, and for many men, virtual women are now genuine competition for real partners. In the same survey, 46% of men (and 16% of women) under 40 reported watching pornography at some point in the past week—and 27% in the past day.

Many young men and women still aspire to marriage as it has long been conventionally understood—faithful, enduring, focused on raising children. But they no longer seem to think that this aspiration requires their discernment, prudence or self-control.

When I asked Kristin, a 29-year-old from Austin, whether men should make sacrifices to get sex, she offered a confusing prescription: “Yes. Sometimes. Not always. I mean, I don’t think it should necessarily be given out by women, but I do think it’s OK if a woman does just give it out. Just not all the time.”

Kristin rightly wants the men whom she dates to treat her well and to respect her interests, but the choices that she and other women have made unwittingly teach the men in their lives that such behavior is noble and nice but not required in order to sleep with them. They are hoping to find good men without supporting the sexual norms that would actually make men better.

For many men, the transition away from a mercenary attitude toward relationships can be difficult. The psychologist and relationship specialist Scott Stanley of the University of Denver sees visible daily sacrifices, such as accepting inconveniences in order to see a woman, as the way that men typically show their developing commitment. It signals the expectation of a future together. Such small instances of self-sacrificing love may sound simple, but they are less likely to develop when past and present relationships are founded on the expectation of cheap sex.

Young people in the U.S. continue to marry, even if later in life, but the number of those who never marry is poised to increase. In a 2015 article in the journal Demography, Steven Ruggles of the University of Minnesota predicted that a third of Americans now in their 20s will never wed, well above the historical norm of just below 10%.

Most young Americans still seek the many personal and social benefits that come from marriage, even as the dynamics of today’s mating market conspire against them. It turns out that a world in which it is possible to satisfy our sexual desires much more immediately carries with it a number of unhappy and unintended consequences.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

WaPo fact-checker is surprised to find that US is, actually, one of only seven countries that allows elective abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

 

[zelezo vlk]

WaPo fact-checker is surprised to find that US is, actually, one of only seven countries that allows elective abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

That's an elite group with North Korea and China. How could you pass up the chance to raise your human rights to the level of those guys?

 

[Legacy]

WaPo fact-checker is surprised to find that US is, actually, one of only seven countries that allows elective abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

U.S. Abortion Facts

-92% of all abortions happen during the first trimester, prior to the 13th week of gestation (AGI/CDC).

-U.S. Abortions rate peaked in 1990.

-In 2013, unmarried women accounted for 85.2% of all abortions

-Two of the primary reasons for abortion are that the mother cannot afford to raise a child/financial.

-In 2008, 51% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. (AGI).

-9 in 10 women at risk of unintended pregnancy are using a contraceptive method (AGI).

-Oral contraceptives, the most widely used reversible method of contraception, carry failure rates of 6 to 8% in actual practice (NAF).

-Two of the top reasons why abortions are not performed prior to 21 weeks are access to qualified health providers and cost.

- 7 states (AK, AZ, CA, CT, HI, IL, MA, MD, MN, MT, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA and WV) use public funds to pay for abortions for some poor women. About 14% of all abortions in the United States are paid for with public funds—virtually all from the state (AGI).

- In 2011, 42% of providers offered very early abortions (during the first four weeks’ gestation) and 95% offered abortion at eight weeks. Sixty-four percent of providers offer at least some second-trimester abortion services (13 weeks or later), and 20% offer abortion after 20 weeks. Eleven percent of all abortion providers offered abortions past 24 weeks (AGI).

- The abortion rate of women with Medicaid coverage is three times as high as that of other women (NAF).

- In 2014, 30% of aborting women identified themselves as Protestant and 24% identified themselves as Catholic (AGI).

In addition to these, the report above has some further information on abortions in America.

To restrict federal funding (Medicaid) as well as state funding for services including contraception methods, to limit the access to abortion facilities making it more difficult and time-consuming and to limit further funding (SNAP (food stamps) and CHIP (health services for children) which would assist women in poverty or potential single mothers (85% of those getting abortions) further worsens a mother's ability to care for her children and is not only irrational but morally abhorrent, especially when the majority of pregnant women who profess to be Protestant or Catholic and may struggle with the conflict of their religious beliefs.

While a new proposed federal law limiting abortions greater than twenty weeks will affect only a small percentage of abortions, the above factors in seeking abortions prior to twenty weeks should be taken into account and those factors addressed in a comprehensive approach to lower the abortion rate further - as well as the impacts on mothers and the children.

 

[wizards8507]

To restrict federal funding (Medicaid) as well as state funding for services including contraception methods, to limit the access to abortion facilities making it more difficult and time-consuming and to limit further funding (SNAP (food stamps) and CHIP (health services for children) which would assist women in poverty or potential single mothers (85% of those getting abortions) further worsens a mother's ability to care for her children and is not only irrational but morally abhorrent, especially when the majority of pregnant women who profess to be Protestant or Catholic and may struggle with the conflict of their religious beliefs.

Really? Federal funding is the thing that's morally abhorrent in all of this?

 

[Legacy]

Really? Federal funding is the thing that's morally abhorrent in all of this?

I believe the statement has to do with the restriction of federal funding for contraception methods.

 

[wizards8507]

I believe the statement has to do with the restriction of federal funding for contraception methods.

Contraception itself is morally abhorrent so restricting the funding thereof seems appropriate.

You act like pregnancy is a cancer, something that is sprung upon unsuspecting women with no action taken on their part. Certainly you know that's not the case. Excluding rape, which is exceptionally rare, pregnancy only occurs when a man and a woman engage in a certain specific act that leads to conception. Abstain from that act and your odds of getting pregnant are exactly 0% even if there was never such a thing as contraception.

 

[GowerND11]

Contraception itself is morally abhorrent so restricting the funding thereof seems appropriate.

You act like pregnancy is a cancer, something that is sprung upon unsuspecting women with no action taken on their part. Certainly you know that's not the case. Excluding rape, which is exceptionally rare, pregnancy only occurs when a man and a woman engage in a certain specific act that leads to conception. Abstain from that act and your odds of getting pregnant are exactly 0% even if there was never such a thing as contraception.

But you know that is not realistic right? I mean, let's be honest. Premarital sex has been going on long before abortions were legal. Abstinence, while yes 100% effective, is not something that is going to happen.

I'm not advocating abortion here, but rather for being pragmatic.

 

[Legacy]

Contraception itself is morally abhorrent so restricting the funding thereof seems appropriate.

You act like pregnancy is a cancer, something that is sprung upon unsuspecting women with no action taken on their part. Certainly you know that's not the case. Excluding rape, which is exceptionally rare, pregnancy only occurs when a man and a woman engage in a certain specific act that leads to conception. Abstain from that act and your odds of getting pregnant are exactly 0% even if there was never such a thing as contraception.

You seem to want to engage me with assigning an belief to me that you have no basis for. I encourage you that instead of dismissing the above abortion facts and providing a more thoughtful approach to the births of these children that may result from some restrictions that have been ruled illegal.

A fair question is should government enact laws that reflect one view of what is moral? If it should, shouldn't it address those other issues as Pope Francis advocated to Congress?

 

[Ndaccountant]

You seem to want to engage me with assigning an belief to me that you have no basis for. I encourage you that instead of dismissing the above abortion facts and providing a more thoughtful approach to the births of these children that may result from some restrictions that have been ruled illegal.

Wait....so you want him to think about the children, when said children would have otherwise been killed in the womb?

 

[wizards8507]

But you know that is not realistic right? I mean, let's be honest. Premarital sex has been going on long before abortions were legal. Abstinence, while yes 100% effective, is not something that is going to happen.

I'm not advocating abortion here, but rather for being pragmatic.

Sure. If someone introduced a bill tomorrow that said "abortion is now 100% illegal and contraception will be 100% funded by tax dollars and free to anyone who wants it," I'd endorse that in a heartbeat.

You seem to want to engage me with assigning an belief to me that you have no basis for. I encourage you that instead of dismissing the above abortion facts and providing a more thoughtful approach to the births of these children that may result from some restrictions that have been ruled illegal.

I don't view the birth of children in lieu of abortion as some kind of societal ill, regardless of the financial well-being of the child's parents.

 

[Legacy]

Sure. If someone introduced a bill tomorrow that said "abortion is now 100% illegal and contraception will be 100% funded by tax dollars and free to anyone who wants it," I'd endorse that in a heartbeat.


I don't view the birth of children in lieu of abortion as some kind of societal ill, regardless of the financial well-being of the child's parents.

The societal ill is neglecting to address the socio-economic factors these women face.

 

[Legacy]

Wait....so you want him to think about the children, when said children would have otherwise been killed in the womb?

Yes. I think it's unrealistic to think those children disappear because people resort to abstinence. That's pragmatic.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

A: "Slavery is evil, and we should ban it."
B: "But what about the Confederate economy?"
A: "..."
B: "That's what I thought. Spare a thought for the poor Southern women who would be affected by your policy proposals."

I'll be the last to argue that our laws and culture currently give enough support to families, particularly young unwed mothers. But it's totally disingenuous to say that one can't really be anti-abortion unless you also endorse a whole separate suite of political programs. Politics is prudential, meaning there are a lot of different ways we could choose to pursue to same worthy end. Whether or not we continue to liquidate ~1 million American babies in utero every year is not a prudential question.

I shared the WaPo article because it's both refreshingly honest and telling that the author was surprised at how comparatively extreme our abortion laws are.

 

[wizards8507]

I'll be the last to argue that our laws and culture currently give enough support to families, particularly young unwed mothers.

I'm sorry, what? You want to make it more appealing to be an unwed mother? That seems to be the exact thing that'll accelerate the decay of the family. What's the incentive to wed in the first place if being unwed doesn't come with any discomfort?

 

[GowerND11]

I'm sorry, what? You want to make it more appealing to be an unwed mother? That seems to be the exact thing that'll accelerate the decay of the family. What's the incentive to wed in the first place if being unwed doesn't come with any discomfort?

Whiskey did say our laws AND culture. You could make the case that as a society we don't help our neighbor enough anymore. Everyone is too private. Neighbors don't know each other, schools lack parent volunteers, churches aren't having community building events, etc. If there were more community involvement in all peoples' lives, including unwed mothers, the burden to raise that child would diminish (it takes a village kinda thing).

With more community outreach programs by churches, food banks, tutoring services, and more, we would be providing more for these unwed mothers without it being welfare.

 

[zelezo vlk]

I'm sorry, what? You want to make it more appealing to be an unwed mother? That seems to be the exact thing that'll accelerate the decay of the family. What's the incentive to wed in the first place if being unwed doesn't come with any discomfort?

I doubt that most unwed mothers are so by choice. And you, Whiskey, me, and all others living lives of holiness would be as effective as any other incentive, because a life of holiness is beautiful.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I'm sorry, what? You want to make it more appealing to be an unwed mother? That seems to be the exact thing that'll accelerate the decay of the family. What's the incentive to wed in the first place if being unwed doesn't come with any discomfort?

I'm obviously not suggesting that we incentivize extra-marital sex. But it's going to happen regardless of how we structure incentives, and it's inhumane to relegate such women (and their children) to a life poverty.

 

[wizards8507]

I doubt that most unwed mothers are so by choice.

How do you become an unwed parent without choosing to have sexual intercourse outside of marriage? Unwed births are something like 1.5 million per year and rapes resulting in pregnancy are a tremendously small portion of that. So yeah, I'd say the vast majority of unwed mothers are so by choice.

 

[GowerND11]

How do you become an unwed parent without choosing to have sexual intercourse outside of marriage? Unwed births are something like 1.5 million per year and rapes resulting in pregnancy are a tremendously small portion of that. So yeah, I'd say the vast majority of unwed mothers are so by choice.

They chose to have sex, not become a mother. Yes I know, that is the risk when having sex. However, I'm pretty sure these women aren't thinking every time, "I just want to be an unwed mother!"

 

[zelezo vlk]

How do you become an unwed parent without choosing to have sexual intercourse outside of marriage? Unwed births are something like 1.5 million per year and rapes resulting in pregnancy are a tremendously small portion of that. So yeah, I'd say the vast majority of unwed mothers are so by choice.

They chose to have sex, not become a mother. Yes I know, that is the risk when having sex. However, I'm pretty sure these women aren't thinking every time, "I just want to be an unwed mother!"

Ding ding ding. C'mon wiz, do you really think single mothers prefer raising children alone?

 

[Ndaccountant]

I'm obviously not suggesting that we incentivize extra-marital sex. But it's going to happen regardless of how we structure incentives, and it's inhumane to relegate such women (and their children) to a life poverty.

While I agree with that, we also know that there is a distinct advantage for children being raised in two parent households. Advantages abound, including economical, health, risk taking behavior (including children born out of wedlock), etc.

I know that you, Whiskey, know this. But I would much rather see programs promoting this type of behavior rather than making single parents less poor.

 

[wizards8507]

They chose to have sex, not become a mother. Yes I know, that is the risk when having sex. However, I'm pretty sure these women aren't thinking every time, "I just want to be an unwed mother!"

Proximate cause. It's the same thing. Pregnancy is not the "risk" you take when you have sex, it's the entire reason sex exists in the first place.

Your argument is like saying we shouldn't charge the drunk driver who runs a kid over with murder. I'm pretty sure those people aren't thinking "I just want to murder a kid." If X causes Y, there's no effective difference between choosing to do X and choosing to do Y.

Ding ding ding. C'mon wiz, do you really think single mothers prefer raising children alone?

No, but I think horny people like to rub their genitals together.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

While I agree with that, we also know that there is a distinct advantage for children being raised in two parent households. Advantages abound, including economical, health, risk taking behavior (including children born out of wedlock), etc.

I know that you, Whiskey, know this. But I would much rather see programs promoting this type of behavior rather than making single parents less poor.

That's fair, and it's important to recognize that we're a long ways away from having a life-affirming culture/ legal regime. Legacy and others on the left see anti-abortion sentiments frequently expressed in a vacuum; and to the extent one doesn't acknowledge deeper, more pervasive injustices that tie into abortion, I can't blame them for doubting the good faith of their political opponents.

I think the most holistic way to approach this issue is from the angle of, "What is best for children?" We need more babies! Our total fertility rate--already significantly below replacement-- is the lowest its ever been, and the decline shows no signs of slowing. If we don't start having more children and raising them better, the political problems we're going to have in just a few decades as entitlements for the elderly start to balloon will make our current dust-ups look like child's play.

Contraceptives have to be addressed, because once one has normalized technology that severs sex from its naturally procreative purpose, all these other issues-- no-fault divorce, abortion, hook-up culture, polyamory, etc.-- become inevitable, since they're all logically entailed by the first principle. Sex isn't about consequence-free pleasure between consenting individuals, it's about society reproducing itself and, on an individual level, about bringing something sacred into the world. You can't ditch either of those principles-- the sanctity of human life and the procreative purpose of sex/marriage--without killing a lot of babies and hurting a lot of kids.

 

[zelezo vlk]

No, but I think horny people like to rub their genitals together.

That's true, but women aren't having sex with the intention of becoming single mothers. The women who are deserve our support, for their sake, for the sake of the children, and for our own sanctification.

 

[wizards8507]

No, but I think horny people like to rub their genitals together.

Contraceptives have to be addressed, because once one has normalized technology that severs sex from its naturally procreative purpose, all these other issues-- no-fault divorce, abortion, hook-up culture, polyamory, etc.-- become inevitable, since they're all logically entailed by the first principle. Sex isn't about consequence-free pleasure between consenting individuals, it's about society reproducing itself and, on an individual level, about bringing something sacred into the world. You can't ditch either of those principles-- the sanctity of human life and the procreative purpose of sex/marriage--without killing a lot of babies and hurting a lot of kids.

TFW Whiskey uses ten times the number of words that are necessary to make the point I already made.

 

[GowerND11]

Proximate cause. It's the same thing. Pregnancy is not the "risk" you take when you have sex, it's the entire reason sex exists in the first place.

Your argument is like saying we shouldn't charge the drunk driver who runs a kid over with murder. I'm pretty sure those people aren't thinking "I just want to murder a kid." If X causes Y, there's no effective difference between choosing to do X and choosing to do Y.


No, but I think horny people like to rub their genitals together.

C'mon Wiz... Bit of a stretch, no?

All I'm saying is, while we shouldn't encourage unwed pregnancies, single parent homes, etc., you cannot just feed them to sharks. Mistakes happen, premarital sex will occur. How can we best serve these women and children so that they can produce in our society.

 

[zelezo vlk]

TFW Whiskey uses ten times the number of words that are necessary to make the point I already made.

There is a benefit to brevity, but to be fair to Whiskey, his is probably closer to the response the Vatican would offer.