Reality Check: What Do Teens Really Want?

Katie Staudt, Intern

 

A project to prevent teen pregnancy was recently launched by the City of Baltimore’s Health Department called “Know What U Want.” From the campaign’s title, it appears to be an admirable undertaking. After all, no one wants teen pregnancy nor does anyone object to empowering teens to know what they want in life. However, on their website, teens will only discover how to choose their method of birth control and learn how to “get the goods” (which teens are assured can done without their parents’ knowledge). Is this really empowering teens to know what they want? Well, not according to social science.

Such a campaign presupposes that what teens want is sex and the only thing left to “know” is what method of birth control is best for them. But the reality is sex is not ultimately what teens want. While it is true that many teens engage in sex (nearly 48% of all high schoolers), a majority realize afterward that sex and hooking up is not all that it’s cracked up to be. In fact, research shows that 91% of girls who “hook up” have regrets due to guilt or feeling used, and 80% wish it never happened. Even MTV reports that nearly 2/3 of teens wish they had waited to have sex.

Of course, this same data could be used to suggest we need to help that small percentage of teens who don’t have regrets know what birth control they want. But, the reality is teens who begin sexual activity at a young age are likely to deal with permanent negative physical, psychological, social and economic consequences that they might not immediately realize. A Heritage research report shows that sexually active teens have a higher probability of becoming infected by STDs, fall into depression, and eventually have unstable marriages and live in poverty.

Even with all these facts, it might seem worthwhile to give teens “what they want” to at least prevent teen pregnancy. But, the reality is a number of studies have shown that contraceptives do not prevent teen pregnancy. In fact, a recent study conducted by  a professor from Duke and Yale found that “programs that increase access to contraception are found to decrease teen pregnancies in the short run but increase teen pregnancies in the long run.”

Teens, like all humans, want happiness and fulfillment. Even though some seek happiness in sex, they haven’t found it there. So if we really are trying to empower teens to know what they want, perhaps we should begin by explaining how we are designed as humans as well as the negative consequences when we go against our design and positive outcomes when we live in line with it. It also might not be a bad idea to promote healthy families and worship because, in reality (see here and here), that’s where the most happiness is found.

Safe Sex?

Amanda Brennan, Intern 

 

When did sex become dangerous? That’s the question my theology professor, Fr. Dan Pattee, posed in class last semester about the well-known slogan, “safe sex.” Since when did the act intended to preserve the human race and to unite married couples into deeper union become unsafe? The answer is simple: when it was taken out of its original context and manipulated by man’s sensual appetites.

Now, the world faces an AIDS and STD epidemic along with a culture rampant with premarital sex, pornography, adultery, divorce, abortion, teenage pregnancy, single-parenthood, and more. Many believe the solution to sexually active adolescents comes with the launching of “safe sex” programs, while others think abstinence programs to be effective. This difference of opinion can be seen by the recent controversy behind the release of the “National Survey of Adolescents and Their Parents: Attitudes and Opinions about Sex and Abstinence.” Back in August of 2010 the study performed by an entity of HHS was only partially released until enough people complained and some even filed the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Debate came after the survey, which reviewed 1,000 adolescents between the ages of 12 and 18 and their parents, found that 60% of teens believed only married people should have sex and 70% of adults believed their children should wait until marriage to have sex. Furthermore, 68.3% of teens responded that they would like a family member to educate them on sex, and 92.3% of parents agreed, wishing that they or someone in their family would teach their teens about sex. As Catherine Snow of Citizen Link explains, the study “does not support the administration’s objective – or that of vocal “safe sex” activists – of eliminating all abstinence-education funding.” So, what kind of sexual programs should be advocated, “safe sex” or abstinence?

In a perfect world, neither. But that really isn’t an option today. There is a disconnect between parent and child on issues of sex. For various reasons kids are not receiving sex education at home like once before, and as a result it has to be taught at school. MARRI research shows over and over the importance of an intact married family. A home where a mother and father are living out human sexual love is where healthy sex education is fostered. The breakdown can be seen in the following MARRI study: for women under the age of 18, first sexual intercourse occurs at 52% in an intact married family, while with single-parenthood it is above 70%.

The battle continues to decide which education approach will prevail, “safe sex” or abstinence, but the recent survey must not be overlooked. Sex is sacred and it should be explained in a sacred environment. That environment is within an intact married family. As demonstrated above, both parents and teens desire that sex education be nurtured in the family. Sex is not dangerous; it is blessed and beautiful within the marriage of a man and a woman.

Failing Schools or Failing Families?

By: Eileen Gallagher, Intern

On June 20 the Gallup Poll stated that only 29% of Americans have confidence in our public school system, a new low.

Meanwhile Pew Research Center reported that “In 1960, 72% of all adults ages 18 and older were married; today just 51% are.”

These two facts appear to be unrelated, but last year The Heritage Foundation published an article on education which pointed out that “In 2009, white public school eighth-graders outscored their black classmates by one standard deviation (equivalent to roughly two and a half years of learning) on the math portion of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test.”

Meanwhile, “according to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, by the age of thirty nearly 81 percent of white women … will marry, but that only 52 percent of black women will marry by that age.”

Are these two facts also unrelated?

Confidence in public schools system is very low, and the marriage rate is also very low. African America students are, academically, far behind white students, and the African American marriage rate is very far behind the white marriage rate. The first rule of statistics is that correlation is not causation. While there may be a correlation between marriage rates and educational outcomes, it does not follow that one causes the other.

The family and the school are both institutions in society, and as such each has a specific role to play in the development of people in a society. Institutions are connected to one another, but each institution must fulfill its individual function for society as a whole to thrive.  The family is the most important institution because it is the first and the most natural. Children spend the first 5  years of their life participating mainly in that institution because all the others, such as education, government, the market, and even religion, have more of an impact later in life. Each family is responsible for the initial formation of a person, and if that formation does not take place, every other institution will struggle to fulfill its role in the formation of the same person. An analogy will make this more clear. Two sculptors are working on a statue. One is more capable of shaping the marble into the figure of a person, but the other sculptor is better at sculpting details. It is necessary for the first sculptor to shape the person well enough so that the second sculptor can begin where he left off. If the first does not shape the head of the statue, how can the second make a nose for the statue? In the same way, if the family does not lay the foundations well, the other institutions will have a very difficult, and perhaps impossible, task.

Social Science proves that an intact family structure is highly correlated with educational outcomes. The Marriage and Religion Research Institute found that children from intact families who worship weekly are more likely to receive a Bachelor’s Degree and to receive A’s in school.

The next Gallup Poll should assess confidence in the family. If families are doing well it is very likely that schools will start succeeding as well.

The Sex Secret You Won't Find in Cosmo

Betsy Huff, Intern

 

Pick up the latest issue of Cosmopolitan magazine (or any issue for that matter) and you are sure to find a cover story on the “hottest new sex secrets.”  In fact, the aim of the publication seems to be to aid women in finding the most possible fulfillment in their sexual experiences and encounters.  There is a shocking, but not so new (in fact some may say ancient) piece of information that may change the way you view religion and sex.  

In February of 1999, U.S.A Today ran a cover story entitled “Revenge of the Church Ladies,” by William R. Mattox Jr., which revealed that some of the most sexually satisfied women in the country are religious women. It is no divine revelation that premature sexual activity has devastating effects on young girls, but a study that reveals in objective terms that religious women experience more frequent sexual responsiveness might come as a surprise.  Gone is the notion of the prudish, Victorian-minded and sexually repressed church woman the Sexual Revolution worked so hard to release! 

The study cites four factors that may contribute to sexual fulfillment in religious women. Sexual inexperience and lack of baggage from past sexual involvements contributes to a satisfactory sex life within marriage. Similarly, this lack of a sexually licentious past is related to less sexual anxiety due to guilt or fear of consequences from sexual promiscuity. Logically, sexual anxiety is a factor that inhibits sexual satisfaction.  Also, marriage in itself creates an environment for human sexuality to flourish.  The commitment and fidelity created by this relational union allows a woman to “let go” and thus experience more sexual responsiveness.  Finally, for religious women sex is more than just a physical act to meet a sensory appetite. The physical act is also spiritual and emotional; it is symbolic of a transcendent truth that the two are really “one flesh.”  

This is just one of many examples of social science research supporting the way God intended and commanded humans to live. Other examples include evidence from MARRI research that supports the idea of an intact family as the best environment in which to raise happy, healthy, and successful children.  Other social science research supports these same ideas. As Dr. Pat Fagan of the Marriage and Religion Research Institute says, "The social sciences, done well, illustrate the way God made man."

Concentration Can

Amanda Brennan, Intern

 

For many couples today, having children has become an ART, or an act of Artificial Reproductive Technology. This method, which contributes to more than 1 percent of all infant births, involves the combining of egg and sperm outside the body through various procedures. In most cases a woman’s eggs are retrieved surgically after superovulation, and a man’s sperm is collected via masturbation or a medical procedure. The two are then combined in a petri dish to form new life. From this moment on, the fate of the embryos is unclear. The couple has several options: implant into the biological mother, implant into a surrogate, donate to another couple, dispose of, donate to research, or freeze.

Cryopreservation, or the freezing of excess embryos, is a common practice at virtually all of the 443 identified fertility clinics throughout the United States. Presently, it is believed that over 400,000 human lives are suspended in “concentration cans” of liquid nitrogen. In all the hype of solving infertility and creating genetically enhanced children, life is being destroyed (an estimated 6½ embryos are lost for every live birth in IVF) and embryos are being imprisoned in a “man-made limbo.” The evils of concentration camps went unnoticed until after the damage was done in WWII, and the same may be true for the injustice of cryopreservation that is occurring throughout the world today. The question of what to do with embryos that are abandoned or unwanted has gone unanswered in the U.S., but in some European countries those unclaimed embryos are often cleaned out and destroyed to make room for newer ones coming in. Little thought has been given to the consequences of ART methods on future society as a whole, most importantly on the family.

Through procedures such as IVF the fundamental norm of creation is manipulated. No longer do people beget children, instead they manufacture them, casting the sexual act between a man and a woman aside. The separation between procreative and recreational sex continues. As ART procedures grow in popularity more and more children will be detached from their biological parents. Originally, only homologous artificial fertilization was practiced, but now heterologous artificial fertilization is acceptable. This opens the door for single parenthood, homosexual parenthood, etc., in the meantime gradually devaluing the institution of marriage. For instance, a child could be created from the egg and sperm of two strangers, gestated by another woman, and then raised by two completely different people. Up to five individuals can contribute to the creation and upbringing of a child, not to mention the third-party intervention of scientists and medical professionals throughout the process. As MARRI research points out, children thrive when they grow up in an intact married family. In 2009, 45.8 percent of children experienced family intactness. Some ART procedures provide a child with a stable home between a married man and woman, but many others provide the opportunity to redefine marriage and childbearing unlike ever before. 

As science continues to progress, we must not forget the famous words of Dr. Seuss, “A person's a person, no matter how small” (Horton Hears a Who). Humans must evaluate the repercussions of their actions before creating injustices such as frozen embryos. There are ways to treat infertility that respect the dignity of the human person, that value life at even its smallest stages, and that safeguard marriage and the sexual act. It must not be forgotten that children have a fundamental, inalienable right to be born and raised in an intact family, not stored in a refrigerator.

Marriage and Children Could Save Your Life

Kevin Burns, Intern

We’ve all seen advertisements for wonder-fixes that will make you healthier, happier, more fit, better looking, and richer. But who knew that the world’s greatest “fix” might be right in front of our eyes?  Granted, starting expenses can be pricey, but considering long-term economic benefits, it’s a steal!  He might not quite be Vince the Shamwow, but Norwegian economist Øystein Kravdal’s new study finds that getting married and having a family could decrease your risk of dying by up to a third.

Kravdal’s study “Family Life History and Mortality in Norway,” recently published in the Population and Development Review, tracks the marriage and childbearing history of Norway’s population since 1960.  He tracks men and women separately, as well as nineteen different marital status and marital history categories.

Science has long shown that unmarried men are far more likely to die than married men. But Kradval’s study adds in the benefits of having children.  Among married men, those without children are 36% more likely to die than their counterparts who have fathered two or more children.  In stark contrast, divorced men with no children have a 300% higher risk of dying than married men with two or more children.

The study shows similar results for women. Married women without children run a 61% higher risk of mortality than married women with two or more children. As with men, divorced women without children are almost 300% more likely than married women with children – and close to 100% more likely to die than divorced women with children.

Scientists have speculated about the causes of these trends for years.  Many suspect that married people live longer because of selection - healthy people are more likely to marry and have children. Similarly, particularly in men, having dependents can decrease risky behavior and the likelihood of suicide.  Whatever the cause, in a culture obsessed with longevity and youth, marriage and children could be the fix we’ve all been looking for.

Why Marriage Really Matters

Eileen Gallagher, Intern

Yesterday advocates of same-sex marriage opened a campaign targeted specifically at young people. The rhetoric and marketing skills of the new campaign are brilliant.

The war over marriage is being fought furiously on both sides, but advocates for same-sex marriage use words as their weapon and it seems inhuman to contradict them. For example, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a supporter of the new campaign, said:

“We believe in equality of opportunity rather than outcome. Most importantly, we believe that the individual and the family are the central engines in our society… It is about equality for all with no exceptions.”

On the website“Freedom to Marry,” there is a page called “Why Marriage Matters” featuring videos and stories of supporters saying these things:

“We are not here to judge each other. We are here to love each other.”

“Marriage is about showing people you’re committed to one person.”

“We wanted to get married for the same reason as everyone else, because of love, family, and making that commitment to one another.” 

The words they use are beautiful. Everyone believes in equality, love, family, and commitment. These are the roots of American and family values.

The movement catches everyone’s attention by using emotionally charged words, and now they are concentrating their efforts on the right group of people. While the formation of beliefs is a lifetime project, young people, usually from the end of their high school years and into their 20s, are especially forming their opinions and deciding what they believe in. Often children assume the views of their parents, but some do not, and others change their views on specific issues.

Topics such as abortion, contraception, and same-sex marriage hit close to home in these years when many young people are “exploring their sexuality.” Those who are not themselves facing decisions about abortion or contraception certainly know people who are. This is the ideal time to try to persuade someone on these issues, because it is relevant to daily life.

The rhetoric and marketing skills of the new same- sex marriage campaign are brilliant, but their facts are wrong.

Young people are often drawn in by slogans, but they are captured by truth. Social science proves that an intact heterosexual marriage has the best results for children, and also for adults. The Marriage and Religion Research Institute shows, with social science, that there are 162 Reasons to Marry and states, “Marriage is the foundational relationship for all of society. All other relationships in society stem from the father-mother relationship, and these other relationships thrive most if that father-mother relationship is simultaneously a close and a closed husband-wife relationship.”

Hard data cuts through emotionally charged words and shows the truth about marriage. Now it is time for hard data to reach the same young people that the “Freedom to Marry” group is trying to reach.

Be careful what you wish for...

Betsy Huff, Intern

The issue of the oversexualisation of girls in our modern culture is one frequently written about in both popular and scholarly publications.  It is a concern of parents and psychologists alike.  In 2006 the American Psychological Association released a report regarding this subject.  The report lists the many causes of the unhealthy sexualisation of young girls, most of them pertaining to media images in television, movies, and music. It also cites merchandise that is inappropriately suited for young girls, clothing such as thongs that are sold for girls as young as 7, toys that display scantily clad women, and advertising that creates an unattainable physical ideal. The APA encourages parents and teachers to be aware of the societal messages they are sending to their children, particularly in regard to physical attractiveness and self-worth.  APA reports that one of the most dangerous ways girls sexualize themselves is through self-objectification: “Psychological researchers have identified self-objectification as a key process whereby girls learn to think of and treat their own bodies as objects of others’ desires… girls internalize an observer’s perspective on their physical selves and learn to treat themselves as objects to be looked at and evaluated for their appearance.” 

While I agree that the media can have toxic influence on women’s body image and sexuality, particularly young girls, I do not think it is the only place of blame. The sexual revolution has had a detrimental impact on sexuality in the nation as a whole; MARRI’s Family Trend Lines reflect some of these consequences. The sexual revolution has also caused the oversexualisation of young girls. The ideals it promoted, free love, sex outside of marriage, and the uninhibited use of contraceptives to allow for a lifestyle of promiscuity minus the physical consequences or risk, have not given women freedom in their sexuality, but have only created bondage.  Choice and freedom in sexual exploration have not gained women the respect and dignity as holistic human beings they desire, nor has it given them more power over their bodies and sexuality. Instead it has encouraged a hedonistic attitude toward sex. It has allowed men to continue objectifying women as nothing more than a source of sexual pleasure and women to objectify themselves in a feeble attempt to gain joy in their sexuality that only comes from the security and commitment of a monogamous relationship.

There are women who recognize this issue and are combating the oversexualisation of women in society particularly the media. Kara Eschbach, editor of the recently created Verily magazine, speaks of the magazine’s vision for their particular audience of young professional women saying, “We are aiming to show style that respects our dignity, instead of compromising it; to explore our relationships, not just sex; and feature thought provoking articles, not just rhetoric.”  The solution to the objectifying of women in society is to promote and protect true femininity and sexuality in the framework of strong marriages and families.  Sexuality should indeed be celebrated, after all it was created and given to us by God, but it should also be protected and cherished in the sacred context in which it belongs.

Social Science Confirms Social Values on Gay Families

Kevin J. Burns, Intern

Conservatives are often condemned for basing their political beliefs on their theological principles.  In contrast, science is held up as the temple of positivism and acceptance of newly-forming social norms.  Science, unlike religion, is not based on “values”; rather, it is based on hard, indisputable facts. It cuts through prejudice and tradition and gets to the truth of the matter.  I make no contentions against science.  Science, in its purest form, is indeed the quest for truth. But scientists, like all members of the human species, can be biased and have their judgment clouded.  This has been the case when considering social science studies on homosexual families – until two recent peer-reviewed social science studies came to light.

 

Dr. Loren Marks of LSU recently published a review of the current research on homosexual families in Social Science Research.  His study finds evidence in opposition to the American Psychological Association’s 2005 statement arguing that there is no difference for the children of heterosexual or gay households.  Marks finds fault with the currently available social science studies, pointing out that none of the currently available studies compares a large nationally-representative sample of gay and heterosexual parents and children to each other. Instead, he finds that most of his colleagues have considered small samples that do not represent the nation and that the studies do not hold up to the rigors of scientific peer review.  Additionally, many of these studies focus on the gay parents, not on their children. Thus, the current research considers only one aspect of the family – the parents – while failing to consider the longest-term results of the relationship, as the children of gay parents mature and move into the world.

Dr. Mark Regnerus of UT Austin seeks to remedy this failing with his own study, also published in Social Science Research. Regnerus uses a large population sample and studies 2,988 children over 21 years, from ages 18 to 39. Among other things, Regnerus found that children of gay parents are far more likely to have received public assistance at some point during their lives, are less likely to be employed, less likely to vote regularly, and more likely to have been sexually abused and have suffered from sexually transmitted infections. It is important to note that this study considers only correlation; it does not look to causation. Regnerus does not argue that gay parents are bad parents.  His research merely points out that, on average, the children of gay parents are far more likely to suffer certain social ills. Regnerus does not deal with social values or theology, but with statistics.

Every child deserves the most stable family structure possible.  Family structure is obviously critical to the health and well-being of the children of that family, as MARRI showed in its Annual Report on Family Trends.  Equality is a beautiful and important thing, engrained in the character of the American republic.  However, it is logically impossible to argue for equality for gay couples while ignoring the inequality of outcomes evident among their children.

The “Miracle” Drug

Amanda Brennan, Intern

Growing up, I have distinct memories of TV commercials featuring happy, care-free women shopping or going out with friends, while in the background a voice told of the benefits of the latest birth control pill. Though I was clueless about the advertisement itself, I was struck by one phrase: “Have only four periods a year.” For a girl nearing young womanhood, the idea sounded brilliant! Yet, something always left me unconvinced and unsettled.

When the birth control pill came on the scene in the 1960s, it was intended to be the most reliable contraceptive to date. Now, an estimated 11.2 million women aged 15 to 44 use the Pill each year in the United States, as noted by the Guttmacher Institute. Oral contraceptive pills, or OCPs, do more than prevent pregnancy these days; they have additional uses for 58% of users. The study explained that 31% of women use them for cramping, 28% for regulating menstrual cycles, 14% for acne, 4% for endometriosis, and 11% for other reasons. It is believed that 1.5 million women use them without contraceptive intentions at all. The medical world has deemed OCPs “miracle” drugs, as they are prescribed more and more each day to treat health issues. But do these pills in cute packaging deliver healing, or do they wreak havoc on the female body?

With childhood reservations still in the back of my mind, I decided to look into the birth control pill Seasonale, which reduces the frequency of menstruation in a year. I wanted to know the true effects of artificial hormones on the body, specifically the brain. Seasonale’s mechanism of action, the “suppression of gonadotropins,” stuck out to me while searching the Physicians’ Desk Reference. Gonadotropins make up two hormones needed for development and reproduction, luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH). Their production is controlled by gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH), which regulates the sex steroids testosterone, estrogen, and progesterone, thus, contributing to such things as male and female behaviors and maintaining a pregnancy. Usually, cells in the anterior pituitary gland of the brain called gonadotrophs emit LH and FSH, but OCPs manipulate their normal production.

In their recent article, Women’s Brains on Steroids, Drs. Craig H. Kinsley and Elizabeth A. Meyer ask, “What happens, then, when the female brain gets a significant and artificial dose of steroid hormone, either progesterone, estrogen or both?  We know what happens below the waist, the pregnancies prevented.  What happens above the neck, as this steroidal tsunami washes over the neural coastline?” They found their answer in a study featured in the Brain Research Journal that explored the impact of hormonal contraceptives on the brain at different points in a woman’s cycle. Though not detailed or large, the study found that the part of the brain controlling higher cognitive thinking abilities is affected more among women who take the Pill than among those who do not. Kinsley and Meyer point out that these changes may not always deliver positive results, since many women complain they do not feel like themselves after popping artificial hormones into their bodies via birth control pills. In the end, the authors conclude that “[t]he possibility that an accepted form of chemical contraception has the ability to alter the gross structure of the human brain is a cause for concern, even if the changes seem benign -- for the moment…Like the rest of life, and like the steroid choices made by those ballplayers, there are costs and benefits.  The benefits are well established; the costs, however, are still coming to light.”

Now that the Pill is being used for more than just contraceptive purposes, people must ask if it delivers health or merely creates more problems. Rather than just blunt or prevent pain from cramping, shouldn’t a woman know what is causing her cramping in the first place? Rather than blindly take a pill that regulates menstrual cycles, shouldn’t a woman know why her body is out of whack (if, indeed, it is)? I don’t think swallowing pills that can alter brain function, even temporarily, is good medicine. Instead of turning to quick fixes deemed “miracle” drugs, we ought to work with our bodies and not against them. The underlying problems must be addressed with actual cures, not Band-Aids, as explained by Dr. Thomas Hilgers, MD, creator of the innovative women’s health science NaProTechnology.

There is more to scratch your head about than just the Pill’s impact on the brain. As MARRI blogger Katie Staudt mentioned in a recent post, a connection between contraception and the rising divorce rate (among other things) has been found. Furthermore, as high school students continue to be sexually active, more of them will turn to OCPs. As we show in MARRI’s Annual Report on Family Trends, birth control pill use by sexually active high school students rose was at 16% in. Still more young women may be taking the Pill for reasons other than birth control. If these pills can upset the normal functioning of a grown woman’s body, what impact can they have on a developing young woman’s body?

I’m left with one more question: If the use of birth control pills among young women solely for health reasons is increasing, is this not giving them the green flag on sexual activity? Well, it sure is giving them the tools for it.

Green Sex= Great Marriage?

Katie Staudt, Intern

Last week, MARRI blogger Amanda Brennan wrote a post entitled “Green Sex” (see a few posts below). Amanda explained how there is a strong push in society to “Go Green” in order to be better stewards of both the earth and the human body. Yet, at the same time, over 40% of women between 15-44 are using some form of hormonal birth control that pumps dangerous chemicals into their bodies. So while people are attempting to be organic and healthy, they are sabotaging their own efforts by using hormonal contraceptives that have a number of health risks.

However, some people are beginning to question the use of hormonal birth control (and all forms of artificial birth control) for more than just its health risks. A new website called 1Flesh is a grass roots effort that was just launched by a group of young people as a “revolt against artificial birth control” with the goal to “bringing great sex to the entire universe.” 1flesh.org is a provocative website (read their “About Us” page) that asks their readers to consider a host of compelling arguments from a secular viewpoint, primarily utilizing the fields of medicine, sociology, and philosophy.

One argument that 1Flesh presents is the connection between divorce and artificial contraception. They state that “the national divorce rate doubled from 1965 to 1976, at the same time the use of artificial contraception was made widespread and acceptable.” This is no coincidence. Distinguished sociologist Robert Michael from the University of Chicago, in his analysis “Why did the U.S. Divorce Rate Double within a Decade” (published in Research in Population Economics) explained that the “sudden widespread use of artificial contraception during the same period is responsible for about half (45%) of this increase.” MARRI’s working paper on the correlates and effects of contraceptive use cites the same research. I’d suggest reading the whole argument presented by 1Flesh regarding divorce rates, especially if you’re still skeptical; but assuming the research is true, we must consider the implications of divorce. 

Divorce, while widely accepted, has catastrophic effects for the individuals involved and for society at large. Children are particularly harmed by divorce, as clearly illustrated by MARRI’s  “Effects of Divorce on Children.” It shows that children of divorced parents generally have lower educational attainment, weaker relationships with their parents, earlier and greater sexual promiscuity, more social and psychological problems, greater risk of marital problems and divorce later in life, and many other negative effects.

If the research is correct and artificial contraception indeed leads or contributes to higher divorce rates, perhaps green sex is not only healthier for your body; it might make for a healthier marriage and society, too.