The right to have an opinion does not grant the right to remain ignorant.
This seems to have escaped Ben Miller, author of “The Social Impact of Contraception.” The piece is written with equal parts misogyny, post hoc fallacy and holier than thou finger-shaking.
Miller uses Pope Paul VI’s 1968 “Humanae Vitae” as his framework, which he claims is a “prophetic secular defense” against birth control — written by the the human embodiment of the Catholic Church.
Miller immediately reveals the article’s crumbling foundation. To imply this piece is separate from the church is flat-out wrong. The article and the arguments therein are inherently connected to the tenets of Catholicism. Applying an argument rooted in faith outside the Catholic community is illogical, as it judges a secular demographic by standards to which they have no obligation to adhere, making this article largely irrelevant.
Furthermore, 1968, a mere three years removed from Jim Crow, witnessed a gender pay gap of 58.2 percent. Discrimination against ethnic minorities and the LGBTQ community was not only legal, but commonplace.
Forgive me, but it seems inappropriate to choose this era to reminisce upon in a conversation about societal well-being.
The entire article assumes birth control serves no purpose outside of casual sex, as if women are somehow overstepping by controlling their own reproductive systems.
Beyond using birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies, millions of women use birth control to control heavy menstrual bleeding, polycystic ovarian syndrome, endometriosis, migraines, anemia, acne … the list goes on. So until you’ve had a terrible, awful period, you probably shouldn’t decide what is and is not an appropriate way to combat it.
The author attempts to draw causality between the expansion of contraceptives and increasing rates of divorce and infidelity. It is a naive argument at best, a despicable one at worst, rooted in a classic logical fallacy. If A happens, then B happens, A must have caused B. It is propaganda, a scare tactic and mindless rhetoric.
Perhaps you buy it, based on Millers’ citation of a study claiming 30 to 60 percent of married people will engage in infidelity during their marriage. Yet, a skim of this study finds the authors admitting to “notable limitations.”
“We did not assess actual infidelities, instead focusing on anticipations or expectations of infidelities. Not all individuals who predict that they will be unfaithful actually are,” according to the study.
The author has either failed to fully analyze his sources and eagerly grabbed the first statistic supporting his claims, or has knowingly misled his audience. To imagine and to execute an idea are vastly different things. As Millers’ article clearly shows, there is a large difference between imagining a good argument and actually presenting one.
Birth control has emphasized that a woman‘s importance goes beyond her ability to reproduce. Women are not breed dogs. Here’s a secret: women can enjoy recreational sex — and they do, as they should.
Millers’ words hinge on the supposed destruction of sexual morality. By definition, morals are a person’s standards of behavior or beliefs. Fortunately for us, it is not up to Miller to define sexual morality. The term is archaic and closed-minded, indicative of a power structure seeking to control sexual behavior through condemnation.
If we are to accept sexual morality as a valid concept at all, consensual partners should make that decision, not an outward agency.
Contraceptives have granted sexual liberation to women of every color, sexuality and religion.
The power is in the hands of married women, single women, women who avoid premarital sex, women who do not and their pill. If that is the demise of our society, let us fall.
