Sex and Consequences 1/10/2007 By Janice Shaw Crouse

"Woman's Lib brought them sexual freedom but they gave up certain satisfying and happy relationships as a result. I'm not so sure that simple marriage is an answer, as the lack of value and respect they place on their most intimate of gifts has been translated through their e-z behavior, and will surely be returned as a lack of respect by a partner."

Women are completely and utterly on the short end of the stick these days. The sad part is that most don't even realize it. They won't even acknowledge the problem.

I think that deep down, almost all women want a long term, committed relationship to someone. They might not be able to articulate that in so many words, but I think the emotional desire is definitely there. The problem is that with the loose sexuality and the toxic legal environmnet, fewer men are willing to buy into what they view as The Marriage Trap.

In the last 20 years I've seen this go from the complaints of a few men, to the level of undisputed folk wisdom. Marriage is viewed as a raw deal for men. Or to use the oft quoted phrase: "don't buy the cow if all you want is a little milk."

It didn't happen in the last 20 years. It happened in the 60's with birth control and "free" love, only it cost dearly.

My point is that they are pointing to a change that has happened over the past twenty years. If they are pointing to a change that has happened in this time, they should be looking for what is different during this time. "Free love" has been dead and gone for a long time. While many people no longer hold views that perfectly correspond to what the church believes, very few people still believe that casual sex is a good idea. In that sense, we've moved away from the viewpoint that became popular in the 60's and 70's and was just starting to come back down in the early 80's. In that case, a trend that we're seeing now and not twenty years ago should be harder to trace to a philosophy that has been waning for twenty years.

You think I'm being overly optimistic? I think you need to re-read the post. I agree with you.
I wrote that the only reason many women want the father around is for the money they provide the children. They fail to see the critical importance a man plays in a childs life.

I do agreee with you about marriage. It is sad, very sad. Many people who get divorced think they are going to get rid of their problems when divorcing. Rather, they just exchange them for different ones.

It is interesting how you link religion with the marriage statistics. I hear polls all the time report that a huge majority of U.S citizens, 89% say they are Christian. The number decreases dramatically when they are asked specifically if they are "Born Again" Christians, to something like 7%. So if we link religion to divorce statistics, we should define what it means to be a Christian. My instinct tells me that "Born Again" Christians have a very low rate of divorce if both husband and wife are believers.

"I wrote that the only reason many women want the father around is for the money they provide the children. They fail to see the critical importance a man plays in a childs life."

Very true. Unfortunately for the women who would wish to do so, men are getting wise to this. Another contributing factor to the rise in illegitimate births. From a male perspective, the family courts side against the man in all but the most extreme circumstances, so why bother with the marriage license if you're not going to get custody and simply get stuck with a child support payment?

It would be very interesting to see a comparison of the child support payments assessed on divorced men as compared unmarried men where the issue is illegitimate paternity. I haven't seen any research, but I'd be willing to wager that the payments are less under a paternity situation.

"I do agreee with you about marriage. It is sad, very sad. Many people who get divorced think they are going to get rid of their problems when divorcing. Rather, they just exchange them for different ones.

I see a worse problem emerging than divorce. Men are choosing not to marry in the first place, and women are going along with it. Marriage exists to protect women and children, and to a significantly lesser extent, men. The problem is that the legal relationship has become so skewed against men that a lot of men are simply declining to participate. Marriage does not occur where the man is not willing to say "I do."

That's devastating for any children born of illegitimate partnerships, as well as for society as a whole. You, I, and everyone else pick up the societal costs of illegitimacy. We also pick up the costs of the children that were never born. While the costs of illegimacy are readily identifiable and staggering, I would argue that in the long run the cumulative cost of the children foregone will actually prove more debilitating.

"It is interesting how you link religion with the marriage statistics. I hear polls all the time report that a huge majority of U.S citizens, 89% say they are Christian. The number decreases dramatically when they are asked specifically if they are "Born Again" Christians, to something like 7%."

I think the issue there might be a case of semantics. For example, I'm Catholic. Most Catholics would not identify themselves as "born again" as the term is typically used (incorrectly) to identify evangelical Protestants.

By the way, thanks for the repartee and have a Blessed Sunday.

Is it actually a sharp increase in the problem, or are we simply realizing (and focusing on) something that has been there all along?

I am not qualified to give you an authoritative answer to that very important question. But FWIW, from my reading, what I can tell you is that the people who study this issue believe it is some of both. They do not seem to believe that all of the increase can be explained by doctors being better trained at diagnosing depression.

"What do you think is the correct definition of "born again"?"

In my view, it's a handy term meaning spiritual rebirth in Christ.

There seems to be some difference of opinion between Catholics and Protestants as to whether Baptism in and of itself qualifies as being reborn in Christ. I've also heard some evangelicals note that you have to acknowledge Christ as your personal savior in order to be "born again."

I don't see those points of view as being mutually exclusive; if anything, I seem them as being complimentary.

So what's your definition?

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.