From: lane@duphy4.physics.drexel.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: 26 Jan 93 14:05:11 GMT
Distribution: all
Organization: Drexel University Physics

In article <1993Jan26.061830.29495@tessi.com>, allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren) writes:
> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> 
>>In article <1jp6odINNij@gilligan.East.Sun.COM>, mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori) writes:
>>> In article <13960@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>># #Really?  Birth control was effectively unavailable in this country
>># #to teenagers in the 1950s.  It was difficult or impossible for even
>># #married couples to get, until the 1960s.  What happened to the abortion
>># #rate after birth control became available?  It went up dramatically,
>># #as did the illegitimacy rate.  Now, I won't claim that one caused
>># #the other, because I'm quite sure that's not true.  But your claim,
>># #that there is a "*direct* inverse correlation" is demonstrably
>># #false.
>># #
>># #Birth control education, pills, condoms, etc., are readily available
>># #throughout the U.S. now.  When are we going to see the unwanted
>># #pregnancy rate drop to the level it was at in 1960, when these
>># #items were rare, or usually illegal?
>># #
>># 
>># Um... Just a thought...
>># 
>># You're neglecting the fact that the sexual revolution took place
>># during this time period, aren't you?
>># 
>># -- Mike
> 
>>What caused the sexual revolution?  The availability of birth
>>control pills, and an abolition of laws restricting access to
>>birth control.  So why has the number of unwanted pregnancies
>>gone UP?  This is quite the opposite of what you would expect,
>>isn't it?
> 
> From the history books and data I've read, the sexual revolution was
> a concurrent event with the advent of birth control.  They both 
> arrived on the scene at the same time, although the rumblings of
> sexual revolution started in the early to middle 50's, with the
> boiling point coming at the start of the new decade.  Historians
> who studied the 50's and 60's with objectivity have pointed out
> that the legalization of birth control was a natural fallout of
> the sexual revolution, rather than the legalization of birth
> control in itself causing the sexual revolution.
> 

More likely the sexual revolution had its roots in the ready availability
of antibiotics, so that diseases like siphyllus could be reduced to only
a small incidence in the population. 

I saw a very interesting lecture a few years back on the subject of
censorship and venereal disease (which ties in with the subject, I
suppose). Much of the "victorian" mores, including the strict censorship of
sexual subjects, appears to be grounded in the morbid fear of VD.  Given
the hideous fate of 19th century victims of VD, I suppost that isn't very
surpising. 

The extrapolation to today, with AIDs moving into the general populace, is
pretty obvious. 


-- 

 Drexel University       \V                     --Chuck Lane
----------------->--------*------------<--------lane@duphy4.hepnet
     (215) 895-1545      / \  Particle Physics  lane@duphy1.bitnet
FAX: (215) 895-5934        /~~~~~~~~~~~         lane@duphy4.physics.drexel.edu
Xref: sparky misc.legal:23150 talk.abortion:57472 talk.politics.misc:69357