6.3.12

See both Phoebe and also The Hairpin on Rush Limbaugh, the contraception debate, and the ways in which ignorance about how contraception works skews the argument. I wholeheartedly agree with Phoebe that male ignorance about contraception drives much of the issue.

In the comments there, I raise a suggestion that the most vocal constituency in favor of restricting contraception also tends to know the least about it: it's not so difficult to be a part of a family that objected to a school's sex education curriculum and so removed their kids from it, remain celibate into one's 20s, acquire a religious view that makes the use of contraception a positive evil, and therefore not have any concrete ideas about exactly what they're opposing in wanting to ban contraception. This is a problem because a lot of these people congregate in DC, and a lot of them end up in politics or policy--i.e. having an influence disproportionate to their number in the general population. Which is a problem if you are concerned, as I am, about the future of the Republican party and the conservative movement in general.

1 comment:

Phoebe Maltz Bovy said...

I see what you're getting at, but am left wondering, for people in this category, would it really matter if they knew what contraception was? I mean, let's say a woman has had three sexual partners ever: a college boyfriend, a post-college boyfriend, and the man she ultimately marries, but sleeps with before the wedding. Let's say that once married, she continues to use contraception, except when specifically trying for a kid. In general terms, it would be difficult to say that such a woman is/was "promiscuous," or a participant in the "hook-up culture." But if you think all non-marital and non-procreative sex is wrong, if you think "three" sounds like enough partners to mean a woman's been around the block, such a woman is indicative of the dangers of secular modernity.