739
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2024
739 points (92.9% liked)
politics
19120 readers
3343 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I highly doubt many people are doing this.
Media hyped bullshit.
its getting a lot of press because it will upset a lot of dumbfucks
But the internet told me a lot of people are doing it. But since you were the last statement I read, it is now my point of view until I stumble upon another comment.
Many people are doing this.
I'm sure that a few, very dedicated, women are doing this.
It's unlikely to be widespread. Sex is one of the most powerful drives humans have. We generally have a terrible track record of trying to convince people to avoid or even delay sex. Even when people believe that their eternal soul is on the line they keep having sex. That's exactly why all the "abstinence only" policies fails so spectacularly.
There are cases where voluntarily giving up something important has led to change. Hunger strikes are the prime example of this. They can have the affect of drawing attention to a matter and raising sympathy.
I disagree. The modern sexual revolution was only possible due to modern contraception and access to abortion. Did pre-maritial flings happen in the past? Of course. But casual sex was nothing like it is now. It was treated as the rare shameful exception. It was not the norm for people to openly date and publicly announce their sexual relationships for years prior to marriage. (Viewing from a Western perspective of course.)
So if you start taking away abortion and contraception? Why wouldn't you expect sexual norms to return to their earlier state? Pregnancy is incredibly disruptive, dangerous, and expensive.
In Trump's America, sex means pregnancy, and pregnancy means childbirth. In Trump's America, a straight women does not have sex unless she is prepared to be a mother, and her partner is prepared to be a father.
Will flings still happen? Sure. I expect we'll also see a commiserate rise in shotgun marriages.
I agree that 4B, as an organized movement, likely won't have much direct impact. But the general attack on contraceptives and reproductive healthcare absolutely will see a rollback of the sexual attitudes that have developed in the post-1960s world. Sex just has a lot more consequences to it now than it used to. We're going back to a world where you really can't afford to have sex with someone unless you're prepared to marry them and raise children together. Casual hookups on Tinder are not a practical thing in Trump's America.
Sorry guys, you voted for this.
This is exactly correct. Hey guys, while typing all these (dare I call them "hysterical"?) comments freaking out that the number of possible sex partners might be lower than before, could you take a moment to stop and actually consider what WoodScientist is saying?
Getting pregnant and having a baby when you aren't ready for it completely changes the lives and limits future possibilities for both the father and mother, and much more so for the mother who 99% of the time is the main caregiver. It's the woman who has the greatest risk by far.
Besides the risk to a woman socially and career-wise if she gets pregnant, it's dangerous. There's a chance of dying or permanent health consequences from it, physical and mental. And remember that healthcare will be worse too because they'll be repealing the ACA and/or removing a lot of the protections the ACA provides, like requiring insurance companies to cover maternity and any complications. Many Clinics that used to be there to provide low-income women with maternal healthcare, abortion services, cancer screenings, birth control, etc. have already been shut down in red states that have banned abortion.
So a lot fewer women will even have health insurance and it won't cover as much. Plus the odds of getting pregnant will be higher since access to contraception will be more restricted (not covered by insurance and possibly even banned entirely).
So this about more than just your fear of maybe getting less sex. Your biggest possible risk is financial, if you get held responsible for child support. Risks to women are a hell of a lot higher. They gotta do what they gotta do so.
People really don't understand the history. Social practices evolved over the centuries and were as subject to evolution as anything genetic. Most traditional social practices evolved for a reason. Often practices stick around long after those reasons no longer apply, but they evolved for a very good reasons in the first place.
As you note, pregnancy is inherently dangerous to a woman's health, permanently alters her body, and has a permanent and profound impact on her life. And this has always been the case.
Think about how promiscuous women have traditionally been treated. Whore. Slut. Harlot. Women were expected to be chaste until marriage. Meanwhile, promiscuity was often accepted or even celebrated for men. The reasons for this disparity are likely multifaceted, but one likely reason is that sex had such a high risk for women and girls. Think of the mother who calls her own daughter a 'whore' for the way she dresses. Who does that to their kid? Someone who thinks they're doing that kid a favor. Traditionally, mothers expected their daughters to be chaste and conservative, and often that was to protect them from the inevitable risks that came with sex. Women have always had far more to risk when it comes to sex than men.
Effective contraception and abortion access changed this. It was only once the very real risks of premarital sex were ameliorated could modern straight casual sex culture emerge. Yes, some flings did happen in 1850, premarital sex did happen. But it was much rarer, and it was mostly among people who were already on the path to marriage anyway. There were not mixed-sex bars in 1850 that you could go and try and find a partner for a casual fling. Men could go hire a prostitute in most towns and cities, but the idea that a respectable woman would meet a man, alone, then go to his house and have premarital sex that night? That's the kind of thing that could literally end up in the town newspaper the next day.
Contraceptives - the pill, IUDs, condoms, and abortion; these are foundational technologies to modern sexual practices. They are as important as to modern dating culture as the automobile is to a suburban land use culture. When sex means pregnancy, it means you should never have sex with someone unless you are prepared to spend the next 20 years together raising kids. And yes, that means the casual dating scene is going to take a big hit.
When we swap out sex ed for abstinence only we don’t get less sex. We get a surge in teen pregnancies.
Children are different than adults. Adults are perfectly capable of altering their behavior. Do you think it was a coincidence that the sexual revolution just happened to occur immediately after the introduction of effective contraception?
The sexual revolution was the product of many changes. Cheap and effective ontraception was one of them, legal abortion was not. Roe v Wade wasn't until after the sexual revolution had already happened. Ante hoc ergo non propter hoc.
It's also puts people who don't want to have kids at all in a tough spot. It makes surgical sterilization effectively mandatory.
After they make it illegal to medically transition genders, guess what medical procedures they'll prohibit next?
The good news is that since sterilization is a one-time thing, medical tourism (for those with the means) becomes a viable option. I don't see them banning international travel.
Of course this does increase the barrier and will be out of reach for those who can least afford to have children.
Noone is doing it.
And we can check birthrates a year later to prove it.
There's a classic greek play, Lysistrata, that tells a tale of women refusing sex to get the men to end a war. It is notably a fictional account.
Essentially the reference resonates most with college educated (white) women.
You could try reading the article first.