I’m going to wade into social issues even though this is more challenging to write about. But this is something I was thinking about a while back in response to various blog posts, and thought it would be useful to try to write this out. (I touched on this briefly in my comments on Men on Strike earlier.)
Once upon a time, a girl was told, by her parents, and by society, “don’t have sex because you could get pregnant and it would leave you ruined.” Now, society is just as likely to say, “use contraception to reduce the likelihood of getting pregnant,” under the notion that teens can’t restrain themselves from having sex. And depending on the circumstances, she’ll end up believing either that unplanned pregnancy isn’t so bad (or at least is commendable for not getting an abortion), or be told that in her circumstances, abortion is an acceptable or even the right choice to make — or she’ll even be driven to the clinic by her parents.
What’s more, it’s entirely her choice. Under no circumstance does the father have any control. (Which has its own consequences — how can we expect an expectant father to commit to fatherhood if he knows that the mother can, at any point, abort the child?) If she is fine with abortion (and since STDs are treated as fully treatable), sex has become consequence-free. And, in any case, premarital sex doesn’t leave her at risk of being “ruined” and losing respect and her place in society.
On top of that, “don’t get drunk because men might take advantage of you” is practical advice but still not acceptable in 2013 America, given the current legal environment in which, if a man and a woman are both drunk and have sex, he is at risk of being accused of rape. (Has this actually happened? Or is this “on the books” but not actually prosecuted? I don’t know. Recall how Dr. Phil was excoriated for tweeting on the topic in a failed conversation-starter.)
On the other hand: if a man — or a teenage boy — fathers a child (even, as Helen Smith tells us in her book, in quite preposterous scenarios, such as a woman retrieving a discarded condom and turkey-bastering her way into pregnancy), he’s on the hook for the next 18 years. Now maybe an inner-city kid who never expects to earn a paycheck in his life (at least, nothing in the formal labor market, from which wages can be garnished) isn’t concerned, or someone who thinks his “baby mama” is compliant enough not to name him as the father so the State can’t come after him, but what would happen if we reversed course on the abstinence message to speak to boys (and men) instead of girls? What if we said, “don’t have sex with someone you’re not committed to because you’ll never know if she really did remember to take her pill that morning, or if maybe she really just wants to get pregnant. She might say she’ll just get an abortion if she gets pregnant, but what if she changes her mind? She might say she’ll never ask anything of you, but if she goes on welfare, she won’t have that choice. You could be paying for child support for 18 years. Think about it.”
What if?
Now back to your regularly-scheduled economic-ish blogging.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In