4 ms·

When oral contraceptives were first approved by the FDA in 1960, critics at the time warned that “the foundations of contemporary sexual morality may be threate

When oral contraceptives were first approved by the FDA in 1960, critics at the time warned that “the foundations of contemporary sexual morality may be threatened” by the ensuing promiscuity Were they wrong?

harry8 5y ago
>> When oral contraceptives were first approved by the FDA in 1960, critics at the time warned that “the foundations of contemporary sexual morality may be threatened” by the ensuing promiscuity > Were they wrong? Yes. Totally and absolutely wrong. Practice based on fear of consequence is not morality. Weakening the affect of consequence changed exactly nobody's morality. Anyone who claims a morality that is followed only by being based on enforcement through physical harm is pretty messed up. Promiscuity levels changed with the change in cost of the alternatives. Morality of people making those choices did not budge one iota.
- iratewizard 5y ago
  Morality is impacted by perceived norms. Perceived norms are impacted by incentivization. Underage kids making non-nude porn en masse on MySpace would not fly in 2005. Thirst baiting is normal on tiktok today.
  - harry8 5y ago
    Again practice is impacted by perceived norms. If you thought it was constrained by morality and it changed through change of norms and incentives then you just found out it wasn't. You don't have to like that. I sure don't.
    - iratewizard 5y ago
      There is no fear of punishment for not bringing your shopping cart back. No fine or social stigma. Yet most civilized people bring back their cart. Except where there is visible moral decay around them. I don't subscribe to a nihilistic view that any moral principles that a group of people can give up on were never moral principles.
      - harry8 5y ago
        Which, if your observation is true, that shopping cart return is motivated by utilitarian incentive. "If most of us do it, things work better and most us do so it makes sense." Disagree with that all you like, you might well be right. I claim whatever it is it's a long way from promiscuity increasing with a decline in consequence for sexual activity from saying anything about the morals of those who would have loved to fornicate but lacked opportunity prior. Or indeed those so easily swayed by the "everyone does it" argument and were making a virtue of their lack off reasonable opportunity. Reasonable people may disagree with that of course. Usually this kind of thing is imposed morality which isn't individual morals. "I want everyone else to follow what I think is moral by making (sex/drugs/other thing I dislike) have dire consequences through policy because I can't convince _them_ to do the right thing because _they_ lack [my] morals."
- randallsquared 5y ago
  The question only makes sense in the context of what those critics believed about morality. If you substitute your own beliefs on morality, then they weren't even wrong -- it's just a different question.
  - harry8 5y ago
    Morality is the way you act when nobody is watching and the consequences are all but non-existent. I don't think driving more slowly to stay under the speed limit in an enforcement blitz is moral behavior. I think driving as safely as practicable for the safety of pedestrians when there is no enforcement (eg in a poor and corrupt country) might well be moral. If you have different definition of what morality is, that's ok but there's not much to discuss.
- asgadfgheyhe 5y ago
  Their prediction was correct. The morality of the time was, in fact, upended. People did, in fact, become more promiscuous (I think, haven't checked the data). You just disagree with their mores.
- dehrmann 5y ago
  Don't get hung up on the morality bit. The point was that The Pill changed behavior.
  - harry8 5y ago
    So did every piece of technology that was widely adopted change behavior. So what? So there's a value judgement about whether that change in the behavior of others is a good thing. So "morality" which is where this came in. You want to make cases about the pill adoption and STD prevalence getting worse, go right ahead. It is different data and a very different case to make. Also far from obvious which way it goes, fwiw.
    - aqsalose 5y ago
      > So did every piece of technology that was widely adopted change behavior. >So what? It sounds relevant if the pill was introduced and got legalized on the grounds that it would not cause that kind of change but e.g. only help married couples to plan their pregnancies.
addicted 5y ago
Yes. Horribly wrong. The amount of teen sex has reduced drastically since those days. At least in the US. And the amount of unprotected sec has reduced even more. Kids these days are having far less sex overall and far far less unsafe sex than their parents, who were having less than their parents.
- axiosgunnar 5y ago
  But that might be related to the availability of online pornography and not the Pill?
  - mdorazio 5y ago
    Nope. The kind of online porn you’re referring to only became practical with widespread adoption of broadband Internet. That didn’t happen until the early/mid 2000s [1]. Meanwhile downward trends in teen sex started at least as far back as the early 90s [2]. The biggest change by far was massive declines in teenage pregnancy, births, and abortions [3]. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-bro... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/images/2014/YRBS-AIDS-2014-graph3-FullRes.jpg https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/images/2014/YRBS-AIDS-2... [3] http://teendecision.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/historic-pregnancy-birth-abortion-rates.png http://teendecision.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/historic-...

harry8 5y ago

>> When oral contraceptives were first approved by the FDA in 1960, critics at the time warned that “the foundations of contemporary sexual morality may be threatened” by the ensuing promiscuity > Were they wrong? Yes. Totally and absolutely wrong. Practice based on fear of consequence is not morality. Weakening the affect of consequence changed exactly nobody's morality. Anyone who claims a morality that is followed only by being based on enforcement through physical harm is pretty messed up. Promiscuity levels changed with the change in cost of the alternatives. Morality of people making those choices did not budge one iota.

iratewizard 5y ago
Morality is impacted by perceived norms. Perceived norms are impacted by incentivization. Underage kids making non-nude porn en masse on MySpace would not fly in 2005. Thirst baiting is normal on tiktok today.
- harry8 5y ago
  Again practice is impacted by perceived norms. If you thought it was constrained by morality and it changed through change of norms and incentives then you just found out it wasn't. You don't have to like that. I sure don't.
  - iratewizard 5y ago
    There is no fear of punishment for not bringing your shopping cart back. No fine or social stigma. Yet most civilized people bring back their cart. Except where there is visible moral decay around them. I don't subscribe to a nihilistic view that any moral principles that a group of people can give up on were never moral principles.
    - harry8 5y ago
      Which, if your observation is true, that shopping cart return is motivated by utilitarian incentive. "If most of us do it, things work better and most us do so it makes sense." Disagree with that all you like, you might well be right. I claim whatever it is it's a long way from promiscuity increasing with a decline in consequence for sexual activity from saying anything about the morals of those who would have loved to fornicate but lacked opportunity prior. Or indeed those so easily swayed by the "everyone does it" argument and were making a virtue of their lack off reasonable opportunity. Reasonable people may disagree with that of course. Usually this kind of thing is imposed morality which isn't individual morals. "I want everyone else to follow what I think is moral by making (sex/drugs/other thing I dislike) have dire consequences through policy because I can't convince _them_ to do the right thing because _they_ lack [my] morals."
randallsquared 5y ago
The question only makes sense in the context of what those critics believed about morality. If you substitute your own beliefs on morality, then they weren't even wrong -- it's just a different question.
- harry8 5y ago
  Morality is the way you act when nobody is watching and the consequences are all but non-existent. I don't think driving more slowly to stay under the speed limit in an enforcement blitz is moral behavior. I think driving as safely as practicable for the safety of pedestrians when there is no enforcement (eg in a poor and corrupt country) might well be moral. If you have different definition of what morality is, that's ok but there's not much to discuss.
asgadfgheyhe 5y ago
Their prediction was correct. The morality of the time was, in fact, upended. People did, in fact, become more promiscuous (I think, haven't checked the data). You just disagree with their mores.
dehrmann 5y ago
Don't get hung up on the morality bit. The point was that The Pill changed behavior.
- harry8 5y ago
  So did every piece of technology that was widely adopted change behavior. So what? So there's a value judgement about whether that change in the behavior of others is a good thing. So "morality" which is where this came in. You want to make cases about the pill adoption and STD prevalence getting worse, go right ahead. It is different data and a very different case to make. Also far from obvious which way it goes, fwiw.
  - aqsalose 5y ago
    > So did every piece of technology that was widely adopted change behavior. >So what? It sounds relevant if the pill was introduced and got legalized on the grounds that it would not cause that kind of change but e.g. only help married couples to plan their pregnancies.

addicted 5y ago

Yes. Horribly wrong. The amount of teen sex has reduced drastically since those days. At least in the US. And the amount of unprotected sec has reduced even more. Kids these days are having far less sex overall and far far less unsafe sex than their parents, who were having less than their parents.

axiosgunnar 5y ago
But that might be related to the availability of online pornography and not the Pill?
- mdorazio 5y ago
  Nope. The kind of online porn you’re referring to only became practical with widespread adoption of broadband Internet. That didn’t happen until the early/mid 2000s [1]. Meanwhile downward trends in teen sex started at least as far back as the early 90s [2]. The biggest change by far was massive declines in teenage pregnancy, births, and abortions [3]. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-bro... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/images/2014/YRBS-AIDS-2014-graph3-FullRes.jpg https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/images/2014/YRBS-AIDS-2... [3] http://teendecision.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/historic-pregnancy-birth-abortion-rates.png http://teendecision.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/historic-...