How the Birth Control Pill Hurts Boys

Why are our boys failing to grow up? One reason is the incredible impact of the birth control pill on society, especially in how women are deceived by its so-called benefits.

These days fertility clinics are overflowing with shell-shocked middle aged men and women. Of course, most of them spent years not questioning those 'benefits'. If you have ever sat in one, you'll know the mood of the waiting room is unlike any other doctor's office. The eyes of many of the women look like caged rabbits in a research lab, waiting for that next unexpected jab. The dutiful husbands frequently look tired, really tired. And they don't usually look forward to the visit to that room where they have to provide, ah, the 'sample'.

It's usually a really clean room, except for the well thumbed stack of magazines. Those, of course, are helpfully provided to the men such that they can shorten the time required to collect the 'sample'.

Frequently the doc comes back w/ the results and says to him, 'things are swimmingly great for you'. Then he intones softly to her, 'but you, ah, sorry. You have some ovulation issues. But the drugs we have today, and even the IVF options ... there's a lot of hope left'.

Hope. That is what the fertility clinics peddle. Lots of hope. A goodly number of folks spin the wheel and score of course. But a huge number of women and men experience these office visits as something far worse than what any dentist could inflict. Imagine getting a root canal over and over, and the dentist clucking gently, 'well, we'll try again next month'. Ever notice that success rates at fertility clinics are not discussed that much?

Crazy, our world is just crazy. In 1904, though things were not necessarily 'better' in many ways, they were not crazy in this regard. Little boys and girls witnessed during their youth a great reality about sex: it was powerful. A boy, long before puberty, usually watched how when a woman entered the sexual world, married or not, she usually got pregnant. A girl even more so recognized that sex would forever change her existence.

As a result, both witnessed a reality regarding what happened in a boy's life once he went through puberty and was faced with that need to fulfill the daily (hourly?) sex requirement. He simply knew that getting a woman to provide relief for that issue wasn't going to come without a cost: feeding a new mouth.

Women recognized their role, thus, in the matter of translating boys to men. They knew that on the wedding day, a new birth took place when the man took her hand and renamed her, in just the same way as when she would first hold the hand of her new baby he would also name, and shortly thereafter whisper that same last name into her newborn child's ear.

In 1904, men routinely handled the naming responsibility with ease. Not anymore, given how even the act of naming has become so politicized. However, that doesn't change the fact that naming is an act undertaken by men, not boys. Women used to understand that, until the Pill came along. Within a few weeks of that watershed event, boys and girls suddenly learned that sex could be separated from children. What was not announced was the deliberate effort to inject in their minds that the sex act was henceforth to be forever separated from the act of naming.

Boys now could work, but as they pleased. The idea that they would have to work sufficiently hard enough to support a family became optional. And women allowed them to buy into this ridiculous idea, because of the clap trap they were being sold. Manhood, the responsiblity kind of manhood, therefore became optional, and boys learned that they could sell their sperm on the open market for about 50 dollars a shot. Recently it's gotten a lot worse ... young women are being told they can sell their eggs at about 3000 bucks per egg - especially if they have the 'right' genes. Crazy.

In 1904, a woman would look at her suitor, and state that no matter how much he sweet talked her, he better first be able to provide. The woman's Dad, usually a supervisory type (because in 1904, that was a smart way to be if you had a daughter), would give him the same message. That was the reality in 1904 ... sex created kids. Thus, there was a built in incentive for boys to cast off the downsides of boyhood and assume the role of 'man'. They got the reward of regular sex, but attached was the reality of regular work.

And so a woman had a built in incentive to encourage boys to become men in 1904. But today, the Pill deceives them into thinking that 'role' is optional. Oh, some girls wise up at a young age, and get off the pill. They continue to date, but soon enough the guy hears, 'no sex bub, I'm not on the pill'. The 'guy', is suddenly repositioned, by her, to decide if he is really interested, thus marking a step out of guyhood into manhood. Women out there frequently 'get' this is actually good for society.

But too many other girls wise up around 32 or 33 years of age, and way to many wise up even later. That tick-tock sound eventually gets to be deafening, awake or asleep. Suddenly, what seemed to be no big deal was a really big deal - and the one resource that could help them 'relax' and feel secure about getting pregnant ... a man who will be around to protect and provide ... is missing.

The fertility docs all say, hey, you are going to need a low stress environment to get pregnant. Why is that? Well, it turns out stress hormones really do negatively impact the ability to conceive, and carry, a child. And when a woman is alone, guess what? She is stressed, big time.

The marriage that started out so egalitarian at first, with the hyphenated name and all that .... now, he should step up to the plate, and make her feel secure. But instead, he, the guy 'husband' has had lots of practice making her feel lonely.

It just goes on and on, this craziness. But before the Pill, it was simple: sex almost always resulted in a little crying 24/7 bundle of demands and time. The grinding force was always available to help boys put away the boyhood as they struggled into the suit of a man.

In other words, we need our kids, our babies, to help boys grow into men. Our babies are NOT optional. We need our women to understand that they play a central role in the matter of boys becoming men. Selling women on this idea is tough if their Dad was a wreck who never was trustworthy. But that sell must happen, that Dad's failures notwithstanding.

We also need, we conservatives, to understand this: liberals fully understand all this stuff above, in their typical cold calculating ways. They fully understand the key to creating new liberal voters is first and foremost to guard the 'acceptibility' of the pill. It all starts there. Abortion, homosexuality, gay marriage ... all of it a big trojan horse to an extent. It starts with the 'acceptibility' of the Pill, a 'gift of the Greeks'. All the agony currently being experienced in fertility clinics - to a liberal, it's an acceptable Darwinian consequence in the larger fight against what being a Man stands for.

I have told my son, who is a middle schooler, 'stay away from women who take the pill'. I made it clear to him that such a woman will have no interest, ever, in seeing him get rid of his boyhood. Such a woman will be forever content to accept that he would always be a boy trapped in a man's body.

I told him a woman who doesn't take the Pill is a far more interesting creature to pay attention to ... because ultimately, she is capable of loving him more, by seeking to help him grow up.

The next time you are in a plane, and you have the good fortune to be sitting next to a young, pretty woman who is single, snappily dressed in her business consultant blue suit, ask her this question: 'what responsibilities do young women today have in the task of translating boys into men'.

At minimum, I promise you this: the plane ride will seem pretty short. Young pretty women usually love to talk.

Nicely written....I got the feeling that I already knew all this as I was reading, but I think you're right, it needed to be said - even if "again".

The range of comments have reminded me that there is indeed "nothing new under the sun", in the sense that although something can be used for good in many situations, it is often used for evil purposes, as is so interestingly pointed out.

Our sinful hearts tend to do it thataway.

"There are a lot of messed up children and adults out there, and most of them were raised by parents who had them either for the wrong reasons, or by accident, and were unprepared to raise them effectively, lovingly, and selflessly. I think we need to be pushing the idea that one needs to have one's own act thoroughly together, before taking on the huge responsibility of raising children."

I was acquainted with someone who now works for the DHHS. He enjoyed teaching and had good intentions. When he was being appointed to his office, however, his confirmation was attacked by overt enemies of family. So there is a cause that he doesn't want to address or work with.

Driving the Divorce Rate: Who’s Teaching the Women?

It concerns cohabitors and hooker-uppers as much as it does married people. Sanford Braver did mention very briefly in his book, a research report by others about the contrast in social education and marriage expectations between young men and women.

And this is what the policies of our government on feminism are leading to.

The Presumption Against Marriage
by Bernard Chapin

The Presumption Against Marriage, Part II
by Bernard Chapin

Yes, I'm only addressing one side of the issues. But that is the side that most people who are in positions to help are neglecting out of cowardice and personal desire for comforts or recognitions.

As to young adults having children, adults who bother trying to further mature will do so. It's an ongoing process that most professionals in government continue to avoid in their personal lives for the sake of appearances. Many of them are no more mature regarding their families than were Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the boy who posed as her husband.

My question to the man who works in DHHS would be, "Can you help families more where you are working now or by writing or otherwise speaking from your own office?"

"A distinction without a difference."

...modern definitions for a Modern man [They work just as well for Modern women to refer to.]

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) :

Guy \Guy\, v. t.
     To fool; to baffle; to make (a person) an object of ridicule.
     [Local & Collog U.S.]

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) :

Guy \Guy\, n. [Sp. guia guide, a guy or small rope used on board
     of ships to keep weighty things in their places; of Teutonic
     origin, and the same word as E. guide. See Guide, and cf.
     Gye.]
     A rope, chain, or rod attached to anything to steady it; as:
     a rope to steady or guide an object which is being hoisted or
     lowered; a rope which holds in place the end of a boom, spar,
     or yard in a ship; a chain or wire rope connecting a
     suspension bridge with the land on either side to prevent
     lateral swaying; a rod or rope attached to the top of a
     structure, as of a derrick, and extending obliquely to the
     ground, where it is fastened.

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) :

Guy \Guy\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Guyed; p. pr. & vb. n.
     Guying.]
     To steady or guide with a guy.

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) :

Guy \Guy\, n.
     1. A grotesque effigy, like that of Guy Fawkes, dressed up in
        England on the fifth of November, the day of the Gunpowder
        Plot.

              The lady . . . who dresses like a guy. --W. S.
                                                    Gilbert.

     2. A person of queer looks or dress. --Dickens.

In Army initial training for combat soldiers, we were punished with physical training abuse if we referred to any of our fellow men as "guys." That "abuse" made our minds and bodies healthier and happier.

There are seeming paradoxes in this world that confound most who are formally very educated. Fathers who try to be good and try to attain unattainable ideals can help, if experts will allow them to help.

oh brother. so WE are responsible to translate boys into men? are we also responsible for making men feel like boys too? if the author of this sat next to me as a young woman on a plane and said, "how are you responsible for translating boys into men?" i think i would call the stewardess and ask for a new seat.

how about if alot of things have affected men's ability to translate themselves into men and not just the pill? in many ways, i thank god for the pill.

i am not a libber and i think there are alot of reasons why men have chosen for THEMSELVES not to grow up and take responsibility. instead of bugging the women, ask all those thousands of men you see lined up in video arcades, in bowling alleys, at golf courses, in bars, etc. ask THEM why they have never grown up but instead like the role of peter pan where a woman is made to be responsible for them (like a mommy) instead of them taking on their god given roles.

girls are to blame as well when they fail to become responsible and mature. there are plenty of women also abdicating their role as a wife and parent. so it is not just a male thing.

maybe some of the blame lies in our letting the schools take over many of the jobs we, as parents, should be doing? how many parents do you know that actually walk their older children through checkbooks, financial training, contractual agreements, shopping, etc or do we expect them to learn on their own the hard way. maybe parents find it too time consuming to be parents the way they should be.

the issue of learning maturity and responsibility is a heck of a lot more complex than women's birth control.

The 1913 dictionary and others are at dict.org

If you would like to install it on an intranet or other site and administer a UNIX (or UNIX-like) system or have permissions to install packages on one, the following packages are needed.

dict-client-1.8.0nb2: (textproc) Dictionary Service Protocol client
dict-data-1.8.0: (textproc) Dictionary data for DICTD
dict-server-1.8.0nb1: (textproc) Dictionary Service Protocol server

"But I do tend to use old definitions often for the purpose of resisting linguistic activism."

What an interesting way to put it, and gentle too.

I would put it this way: I just observe who currently owns the rights to publish dictionaries and that examination, plus a backwards comparison in time of a few words, like guy, husband, faith, marriage, trust, truth ...., reveals that the publishers of modern dictionaries, online or otherwise, have, and are continuing to promote, a hijacking of the symbols used by people.

Don't believe me? Check out webster's 1828 dictionary, the original one, and then compare it to the latest websters for those words above. The explanation about why the differences are so huge can be traced to time passage, a small effect, and the socio/religious background of who owns the 'rights' to dictionaries, and that change is titanically big.

Modern 'men' do indeed own these symbol translation houses - but I'm just, what's the word .... , oh yeah, a guy whose is paranoid and doesn't get that there are no distinctions in certain kinds of symbols.

I guess, yeah, I'll go to LAW SCHOOL and get it right! The law professors will help me to understand what 'truth' is, and how to properly translate words like guy and man. And, above all, law school will teach me that Noah Webster was a bigoted, ignorant, Christian who hijacked language to promote a racist hate filled theology - and thus to ignore the contents of his dictionary. Yeah, that would be the manly thing to do. Right.

Look, sometimes I can be sarcastic Modernman, and get really frustrated with people who have a cavilier attitude to our written symbol set. Furthermore, Randian types, which I'm pretty sure you are one, I have found to be utterly untrustworthy in regards to matters of the family. Rand never had kids, had an 'open' marriage, and her novels have no kids in them either. Modernity, critical rationalism ... these generate an anti-child worldview. The love of law leads to this inevitability.

oh brother. so WE are responsible to translate boys into men? are we also responsible for making men feel like boys too?

To your first question, women are, in part, indeed responsible for helping to granslate boys into men. The dads have a bigger responsibility I think. The boys themselves obviously have a responsibility. But women who believe that the pill, the birth control pill and the attendent 'free sex' it permits them, has NO EFFECT on their role in helping boys translate themselves into men .... such women are deceived indeed.

To your second question, Hollywood indeed wants women to believe it is their optional power to make boys 'feel' like men. But feeling like a man is something that only comes after a boy learns how to assume responsibility for his own lonliness. Trying to solve that lonliness in the arms of a woman is a perfect way remain lonely, and a 'boy'. It is getting who God is, and the deliberate attempt to serve God that 'cures' lonliness - and covers the boy with the spiritual flesh of a man.

See more of this thinking at this article: Hollywood Bias: "Redemption of man by a woman" movies usually greenlighted.

I am convinced that the increasing rates of inferility and breast cancer (particularly in women who have no family history of cancer) are directly related to pill use, particularly pill plus smoking. Similarly, I know two young women who died from breast cancer within two years of fertility treatment. I would not be surprised if Elizabeth Edwards' breast cancer is related to her late-life pregnancies, which I suspect (though without documentation) were fertility-drug inspired.

I am convinced that the increasing rates of inferility and breast cancer (particularly in women who have no family history of cancer) are directly related to pill use, particularly pill plus smoking.

Similarly, I know two young women who died from breast cancer within two years of fertility treatment. I would not be surprised if Elizabeth Edwards' breast cancer is related to her late-life pregnancies, which I suspect (though without documentation) were fertility-drug inspired.

This news today is obviously a major bummer). That said, her weight distribution (she looks about 100 lb over) is the classic 'apple' shape of a high androgen hormone woman, and she likely suffers from PCOS and borderline diabetes. Breast cancer is a much higher risk for such women - excessive insulin exposure is the root causes....

The pill, weight issues totally aside, prevent pregnancy. 9 months of pregnancy, repeatedly, lowers the lifetime exposure to estrogen. The pill basically causes a kind of bio-xray hazard, that is natural, to be un-naturally long. So, I think we're both seeing this the same way.

As for the fertility treatments, I have never heard of this before as being a 'trigger' for breast cancer. But, I wouldn't be surprised. The fertility docs have pretty much figured out all the systems, and how to jigger them w/ various hormones and combinations.

Fertility in many women is also caused by repeated cervical bacterials from "free love" (which was promoted by early feminists like Woodhull, Beecher and all). I worked in one office pool with quite a few women who were under thirty. Along with the constant, generalized bashing of men, almost all of them approached me for sex, even though I was married. One who was the seventeen-year-old daughter of a State Representative (divorced seven times) blatantly begged me for it (I was 35). And most of them told me without my asking (or wanting to know) a lot about their personal affairs. There were only two who could still have children, because those were the only two hadn't had surgical changes or total hysterectomies.

We've had enough of feminism, including its oldest efforts.

Don't believe me? Check out webster's 1828 dictionary, the original one, and then compare it to the latest websters for those words above. The explanation about why the differences are so huge can be traced to time passage, a small effect, and the socio/religious background of who owns the 'rights' to dictionaries, and that change is titanically big.

The explanation as to why older versions of dictionaries are different from current versions is that dictionaries reflect the current state of the language. There's no value judgment involved- since people today use "guy" and "man" interchangeably, dictionaries reflect this fact.

The English language evolves constantly. Therefore, relying on an 1828 version of Webster's is, well, silly.

I guess, yeah, I'll go to LAW SCHOOL and get it right! The law professors will help me to understand what 'truth' is, and how to properly translate words like guy and man.

Hmmm.... We didn't cover "Truth" in law school- that's a topic more properly reserved for philosophy class. As for properly translating guy and man, anyone who lives in America today knows that the two terms are interchangeable.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.