Glory

Don't forget those for whome access to birth control is blocked.

Glory

luvluv

dk:

I agree with just about everything you are saying, but...

The Moynihan Report was termed as racist by sociologists because it portrayed the pathologies occuring within the black communities as being ENTIRELY familial, and ignored entirely the social and in particular the economic structures that went a long way towards PRODUCING the dysfunction.

The lack of jobs, for instance, has a dramatic effect on marriage and divorce rates, community "policing", and providing a structured model of work for children to emulate in young adulthood. Any marriage counselor will tell you that money is the leading cause of divorce, but it's also the leading cause of non-marriage in poor communities. Fathers (understandably) aren't willing to tie themselves to financial burdens they have no reason to believe they will be able to support. (William Julius Wilson's "When Work Disappears" is an excellent read on the effect of joblessness [as opposed to simple poverty] on social structures).

There is no doubt that family dysfunction plays a major role in contributing to social pathology (in ALL races), but Moynihan was criticized (rightly I think) for ignoring all other relevant factors, and for expecting black families to somehow magically heal themselves of all family dysfunction while all the institutional factors which contribute to that dysfunction remain totally unaddressed. In an environment rampant with drugs, poverty, poor schools, and an unemployment rate which is historically twice that of the white population, the Moynihan report basically said that the only solution to the problem was for blacks to "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps".

There was little (if any) mention of the two reforms most needed: that of repairing schools and providing stable employment which pays above the poverty line (to date, the most pressing issue in many depressed urban communities).

The Moynihan was a carte blanche for the government to wipe their hands of the situation and to moralize away the "Negro Problem" without ever having to get their hands dirty and actually deal with the structural inequities of our society.

Having said that, I agree with just about everything else you are saying. Keep up the good work.

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

A baseless opinion
Are we still talking about sex? You are raving mad dk. Can you calm down please!

See, you got shit all twisted up. Sex to you is murder, holocaust, genocide, torture, exploitation and all that violent crap you have conflated sex with.

When you are ready to write relevant and sensible arguments, wake me up.

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

sentinel00

[deleted again because of 99Percent's sanctimony]

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: 99Percent ]

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: The Sentinel ]</p>

dk

If you read my post Clutch, Justice O'Connor of the Supreme Court in Casey (wrote for the court) that abortion was a remedy for failed birth control. Personally I don't agree with Justice O'Connor, but its not a non-sequitur unless abortion is illegal. .

Clutch

Sure. Abortion is also a remedy for rape, for ignorance, for shame... The judge's claim could be true as an exhaustive generalization about abortion only if one understands "failed birth control" to include failure even to attempt birth control (as when, eg, one fails to understand or be aware of it).

But that's not what you said. You said that
And that is, obviously, a crashing non-sequitur -- to the point of being just a plain foolish thing to say. The reliability of preventative birth control is not impugned by cases in which it plays no part. (Do I actually have to say this to someone, presumably, of voting age?)

And that is yet another bizarre non-sequitur. If abortion was illegal, then the frequency of abortion would directly reflect the reliability of preventative birth control? In principle I should enjoy seeing a theist embarrass himself with incompetent reasoning, but this is painful to watch.

Claudia

I see refusal of pre-marital sex as close to prostitution, from the girl point of view.
You want me? OK, but first marry me, you pay first you get it later.

Of course, for people who are deeply religious and who give a religious meaning to marriage, it can be different.

HelenM

I don't understand this - in what sense is it 'payment' to marry someone?

I think it's a perfectly reasonable choice for a woman not to have sex outside of marriage, for whatever reason. Most sex entails the risk of pregnancy and I think that's enough reason for an unmarried woman to say no, even she doesn't care about the diseases she might catch...it bothers me to see that choice likened to 'prostitution'! Yes, I suppose she could have an abortion but why should she have to put herself at risk of having to have one or bear a child, unless she freely chooses to take on that risk?

Of course, being married doesn't guarantee that a woman's husband is committed to her for life. But I see nothing wrong in her holding out for at least that much level of commitment that her boyfriend would become her husband first, if she so desires.

(If you are married then it would only be reasonable to always refuse to have sex if your partner knew going into the marriage that you were going to)

Helen

Glory

I think witholding sex in order to manipulate someone is despicable no matter what the goal. Like so many other aspects of life, the key is the motivation behind one's refusal. Holding out for a ring is no better than holding out for a mink coat. However, waiting until marraige is not the same thing as that. There are a million reasons to say no. Some are virtuous some are not.

Glory

HelenM

I think being manipulative is wrong, whatever is being used to manipulate someone else.

It seems to me that 'saying no' only equates to 'withholding sex' if the other person has a right to expect sex.

So, when exactly does the other person have a right to expect it?

Helen