The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Raquel Welch Agrees With Me

Posted on | May 9, 2010 | 33 Comments

Da Tech Guy seems surprised:

Raquel Welsh echoing Robert Stacy McCain?

Yet we should not be surprised that even a legendary bombshell would acknowledge self-evident truth:

One significant, and enduring, effect of The Pill on female sexual attitudes during the 60’s, was: “Now we can have sex anytime we want, without the consequences. Hallelujah, let’s party!”
These days, nobody seems able to “keep it in their pants” or honor a commitment! . . . [Marriage] is the cornerstone of civilization, an essential institution that stabilizes society, provides a sanctuary for children and saves us from anarchy.
In stark contrast, a lack of sexual inhibitions, or as some call it, “sexual freedom,” has taken the caution and discernment out of choosing a sexual partner, which used to be the equivalent of choosing a life partner. Without a commitment, the trust and loyalty between couples of childbearing age is missing, and obviously leads to incidents of infidelity. No one seems immune.

So she agrees with me. And other guys in funny hats, like Paul VI.

UPDATE: Of course, not everyone agrees with Raquel and me. A commenter at Hot Air, for example:

I’m married. My wife is on the pill. It beats the hell out of condoms. Cheaper too. When we want another child, she’ll stop taking it.
This article is a bunch of generalizations, loose connections, and statistical bullsht . . . which has no basis in fact or reality, but simply in emotional prejudice. . . .
Is it to make the pill illegal? Is it to ban the choice altogether based on morality, backed by the power of Government?
Or is it to spread the word and hope to educate people about something so they adjust their lifestyles to what you approve?

This type of objection — “How dare you criticize my choice!” — is a logical consequence of the very cultural shift under discussion. Welcome to the Empire of Choice. We may summarize the commenter’s implicit syllogism thus:

  • You criticize Practice A.
  • I engage in Practice A.
  • Ergo, you are attacking me personally.

I have often encountered such emotional reactions over the years as an advocate of home schooling and critic of the public education system. Criticize public schools in general, and you will quickly discover that some people think it a sufficient refutation to say, “Well, I graduated from public school and I’m OK,” or, “My kids attend public school and it’s just peachy keen.”

Heaven forbid you should cite evidence (e.g., education majors, on average, have the lowest SAT scores of all college students) that the teaching profession is nowadays dominated by intellectual mediocrities. Then you will catch holy unshirted hell from some teacher, or a teacher’s spouse or child, accusing you of defamation.

Contrary to the commenter’s mischaracterization of my essay, what I sought to assert was that:

  • The Pill is mindlessly celebrated by the media, which downplays or ignores the potential health risks;
  • The advent of The Pill, and the public-relations campaign with which it was introduced, gave rise to the Contraceptive Culture;
  • The Contraceptive Culture has had disastrous consequences, very much confirming the warnings of Humanae Vitae; and
  • Among the consequences of the Contraceptive Culture is a greater frequency of infertility, depriving women of the opportunity for motherhood.

Nowhere did I urge that The Pill should be made illegal, nor do I suppose that my essay would compel people to “adjust their lifestyles to what [I] approve.”

My approval is as irrelevant as the commenter’s indignation. What is relevant, however, is the extent to which Americans have been indoctrinated with the beliefs of the Contraceptive Culture. If the indignant commenter had followed the link in that essay to my July 2009 post, “Big Money and the Culture of Death,” he would have seen this quote from Bill Buckley:

In the hands of a skillful indoctrinator, the average student not only thinks what the indoctrinator wants him to think . . . but is altogether positive that he has arrived at his position by independent intellectual exertion. This man is outraged by the suggestion that he is the flesh-and-blood tribute to the success of his indoctrinators . . .

No well-informed person can deny that such indoctrination has been integral to the advance of the Contraceptive Culture, and one of the central tenets of that culture is the imperative of nonjudgmentalism: “Thou Shalt Not Criticize Thy Neighbor’s Lifestyle.”

Every reader of this blog is free to engage in whatever lifestyle suits them, without regard to whether I approve. I have at various times criticized cosmetic surgery, and yet I suspect that Raquel Welch has benefitted from surgical enhancement. Am I guilty of condemning Raquel Welch? No. And it may well be that Raquel Welch disapproves of cigarette smoking. Does this imply any insult to me? Not at all.

Yet such is the nature of discourse in the Empire of Choice that many people believe that any general criticism (“Tattoos are tacky”) amounts to a personal putdown (“My mother has a tattoo! How dare you insult my mother!”).

Well, I don’t like tattoos. I also don’t like modern art or cats or rap music. It’s a free country, and if people want to waste their money on Picasso prints, pedigreed cats or hiphop CDs, I can’t stop them. But it’s not my fault that some people so crave approval that they feel personally insulted by even the most general criticism.

Category: Celebrities, Da Tech Guy, Religion, Rule 5, Sex

Comments

33 Responses to “Raquel Welch Agrees With Me”

  1. Paco
    May 9th, 2010 @ 5:10 pm

    I’m now willing to forget that she once referred to Chicago as a state.

  2. Paco
    May 9th, 2010 @ 12:10 pm

    I’m now willing to forget that she once referred to Chicago as a state.

  3. Dell
    May 9th, 2010 @ 5:19 pm

    Whatever her opinion is, I agree with it!

  4. Dell
    May 9th, 2010 @ 12:19 pm

    Whatever her opinion is, I agree with it!

  5. dad29
    May 9th, 2010 @ 6:15 pm

    And other guys in funny hats, like Paul VI.

    Not to mention every other Pope beginning with Peter.

    Pretty soon you’ll be learning Latin, Stacy…

  6. dad29
    May 9th, 2010 @ 1:15 pm

    And other guys in funny hats, like Paul VI.

    Not to mention every other Pope beginning with Peter.

    Pretty soon you’ll be learning Latin, Stacy…

  7. chuck cross
    May 9th, 2010 @ 6:29 pm

    haha, there is a giant charlie crist google-ad running with this blogpost lolol

  8. chuck cross
    May 9th, 2010 @ 1:29 pm

    haha, there is a giant charlie crist google-ad running with this blogpost lolol

  9. Robert Stacy McCain
    May 9th, 2010 @ 6:43 pm

    Pretty soon you’ll be learning Latin, Stacy

    1. I learned Latin in high school.
    2. I’m a Protestant, and I’m going to stay a Protestant, the correctness of Humanae Vitae notwithstanding.
    3. You Catholic proselytizers need to stop wasting your time trying to convert me, and instead go proselytize in Tehran, Baghdad, Jakarta, etc.

  10. Robert Stacy McCain
    May 9th, 2010 @ 1:43 pm

    Pretty soon you’ll be learning Latin, Stacy

    1. I learned Latin in high school.
    2. I’m a Protestant, and I’m going to stay a Protestant, the correctness of Humanae Vitae notwithstanding.
    3. You Catholic proselytizers need to stop wasting your time trying to convert me, and instead go proselytize in Tehran, Baghdad, Jakarta, etc.

  11. tito perdue
    May 9th, 2010 @ 6:50 pm

    One of the wonderful effects of the pill is that by 1964, no one had put herself in a position where she could wish for an abortion.
    What?

  12. tito perdue
    May 9th, 2010 @ 1:50 pm

    One of the wonderful effects of the pill is that by 1964, no one had put herself in a position where she could wish for an abortion.
    What?

  13. Bent Notes
    May 9th, 2010 @ 5:26 pm

    […] implication.  The overall subject at hand is the 50th anniversary of the birth control pill.  In the second of his posts on the subject, the main thrust of which is to cite Raquel Welch as someone who sees the matter the way he does, […]

  14. republicanmother
    May 9th, 2010 @ 10:38 pm

    One could argue that the contraceptive culture is a major factor in destabilizing the world economy. This article:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/the-greek-crisis-is-about-demographics-2010-5

    discusses what happens when you have negative population growth and your economy is based on government Ponzi schemes.
    I believe Stacy has highlighted here before the Demographic Winter video – looks like our chickens, or lack thereof are coming home to roost!

  15. republicanmother
    May 9th, 2010 @ 5:38 pm

    One could argue that the contraceptive culture is a major factor in destabilizing the world economy. This article:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/the-greek-crisis-is-about-demographics-2010-5

    discusses what happens when you have negative population growth and your economy is based on government Ponzi schemes.
    I believe Stacy has highlighted here before the Demographic Winter video – looks like our chickens, or lack thereof are coming home to roost!

  16. Adrienne
    May 9th, 2010 @ 11:08 pm

    Ok – I read the original article (excellent and will be linked), but you lost me at the not liking cats part in this follow-up. I have two cats and take offense – nay, great offense to your not liking cats.

  17. Adrienne
    May 9th, 2010 @ 6:08 pm

    Ok – I read the original article (excellent and will be linked), but you lost me at the not liking cats part in this follow-up. I have two cats and take offense – nay, great offense to your not liking cats.

  18. The WyBlog
    May 9th, 2010 @ 8:04 pm

    Five things feminists have done to ruin Mothers Day…

    When Racquel Welch agrees with Robert Stacy McCain on this issue you know you’re on to something….

  19. DaTechGuy
    May 10th, 2010 @ 1:13 pm

    I know I know I misspelled her last name. For some reason when looking at her my eyes never found themselves wandering toward her spelling.

  20. “This wasn’t happening two generations ago” « DaTechguy's Blog
    May 10th, 2010 @ 8:13 am

    […] Jeffrey Tooben (via Glenn) proves Welch and McCain right and yes I know I spelled her name wrong for some reason when looking at Raquel Welch I never […]

  21. DaTechGuy
    May 10th, 2010 @ 8:13 am

    I know I know I misspelled her last name. For some reason when looking at her my eyes never found themselves wandering toward her spelling.

  22. Roxeanne de Luca
    May 10th, 2010 @ 3:11 pm

    You Catholic proselytizers need to stop wasting your time trying to convert me

    Should that be translated as “Nothing to see here, move along folks” or “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”?

    On to the man with the wife on the Pill: well, it’s not his body that is stuffed full of hormones every day, and he gets to do it without a condom, so yes, I can see how this situation would benefit him. Man-hating feminist that I am ( 😉 ), I disagree with the notion that unmitigated male pleasure is a great argument for the Pill.

    Moreover, it’s an argument that exists in a vacuum. Sure, it might work for him, right now, but that doesn’t mean that the long-term consequences are beneficial to him, his family, and to society at large. What about the long-term health effects for his wife? (Is anyone else really surprised that the breast cancer rate has shot through the roof as the first generation of women on the Pill has advanced into menopause?) The example he is setting for his children? The children he’s never going to have? The siblings that his children will never play with? (Okay, can you tell that I’m one of four kids?)

  23. Roxeanne de Luca
    May 10th, 2010 @ 10:11 am

    You Catholic proselytizers need to stop wasting your time trying to convert me

    Should that be translated as “Nothing to see here, move along folks” or “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”?

    On to the man with the wife on the Pill: well, it’s not his body that is stuffed full of hormones every day, and he gets to do it without a condom, so yes, I can see how this situation would benefit him. Man-hating feminist that I am ( 😉 ), I disagree with the notion that unmitigated male pleasure is a great argument for the Pill.

    Moreover, it’s an argument that exists in a vacuum. Sure, it might work for him, right now, but that doesn’t mean that the long-term consequences are beneficial to him, his family, and to society at large. What about the long-term health effects for his wife? (Is anyone else really surprised that the breast cancer rate has shot through the roof as the first generation of women on the Pill has advanced into menopause?) The example he is setting for his children? The children he’s never going to have? The siblings that his children will never play with? (Okay, can you tell that I’m one of four kids?)

  24. molonlabe28
    May 10th, 2010 @ 3:22 pm

    The Pill helps facilitate sexual promiscuity without consequences.

    But it is also quite useful for couple (in my case married) who do not wish to procreate.

    I respectfully disagree with the Church’s position on this issue and I still regard myself as a practicing Mass-attending Catholic.

    The Church, like all Christian churches, is part man and part God.

    The God part is always good and correct and the man part makes a mistake from time to time.

  25. molonlabe28
    May 10th, 2010 @ 10:22 am

    The Pill helps facilitate sexual promiscuity without consequences.

    But it is also quite useful for couple (in my case married) who do not wish to procreate.

    I respectfully disagree with the Church’s position on this issue and I still regard myself as a practicing Mass-attending Catholic.

    The Church, like all Christian churches, is part man and part God.

    The God part is always good and correct and the man part makes a mistake from time to time.

  26. Kristen
    May 10th, 2010 @ 4:19 pm

    I agree 100% with what these posts have said about the pill opening up a pandora’s box of sexual promiscuity and the consequences that follow. But many seem to forget about another important use of birth control: the regulation of hormones for women who are afflicted every month to such an extent that it interferes with their daily life.

    I began taking birth control at age 15, and was thoroughly embarrassed that someone in school might think I was sexually active. But the hormonal regulation of the pill was the only way I could live my life. Prior to being on the pill, I was in the school nurse’s office once a month, having actually passed out from the severe pain of cramps.

    10 years later, and many attempts to explain to countless disbelieving OB/GYNs that in fact I was not on the pill to be sexually active, and I know it will have affected my fertility –when I decide to start thinking about having kids– and I wish I had another option, even now.

    Just remember, there are many women out there like me, who take the pill out of a desperation to be able to live like normal women, to make it through work and school and life without being completely incapacitated by intense pain every month.

  27. Kristen
    May 10th, 2010 @ 11:19 am

    I agree 100% with what these posts have said about the pill opening up a pandora’s box of sexual promiscuity and the consequences that follow. But many seem to forget about another important use of birth control: the regulation of hormones for women who are afflicted every month to such an extent that it interferes with their daily life.

    I began taking birth control at age 15, and was thoroughly embarrassed that someone in school might think I was sexually active. But the hormonal regulation of the pill was the only way I could live my life. Prior to being on the pill, I was in the school nurse’s office once a month, having actually passed out from the severe pain of cramps.

    10 years later, and many attempts to explain to countless disbelieving OB/GYNs that in fact I was not on the pill to be sexually active, and I know it will have affected my fertility –when I decide to start thinking about having kids– and I wish I had another option, even now.

    Just remember, there are many women out there like me, who take the pill out of a desperation to be able to live like normal women, to make it through work and school and life without being completely incapacitated by intense pain every month.

  28. Jim
    May 10th, 2010 @ 7:36 pm

    Only a moron would home school his kids. But don’t take that as a personal insult.

  29. Jim
    May 10th, 2010 @ 2:36 pm

    Only a moron would home school his kids. But don’t take that as a personal insult.

  30. Mike
    May 11th, 2010 @ 3:41 am

    Unless the formulation has changed, the birth control pill is a chemical abortion, is it not? It either prevents the fertilized egg from implanting into the wall off the uterus or it causes the uterus to slough off its lining, with an implanted egg/embryo, and eject it as an exceptionally heavy menstrual flow.

  31. Mike
    May 10th, 2010 @ 10:41 pm

    Unless the formulation has changed, the birth control pill is a chemical abortion, is it not? It either prevents the fertilized egg from implanting into the wall off the uterus or it causes the uterus to slough off its lining, with an implanted egg/embryo, and eject it as an exceptionally heavy menstrual flow.

  32. Roxeanne de Luca
    May 11th, 2010 @ 3:56 pm

    No, Mike, it’s not.

    It was actually developed by a Catholic (IIRC) as a way of having Church-appropriate contraception. (Epic fail.)

    The Pill mimics pregnancy (which is sort of the exact opposite of the mechanism you propose) by putting early-pregnancy hormones into the woman’s body. That suppresses ovulation, as women don’t ovulate (usually) during pregnancy. The uterus actually never sloughes off its lining (again, the exact opposite of what you propose) while a woman is on the Pill.

    There are plenty of good arguments out there against the Pill; there’s no need to make biologically unsound and false ones.

  33. Roxeanne de Luca
    May 11th, 2010 @ 10:56 am

    No, Mike, it’s not.

    It was actually developed by a Catholic (IIRC) as a way of having Church-appropriate contraception. (Epic fail.)

    The Pill mimics pregnancy (which is sort of the exact opposite of the mechanism you propose) by putting early-pregnancy hormones into the woman’s body. That suppresses ovulation, as women don’t ovulate (usually) during pregnancy. The uterus actually never sloughes off its lining (again, the exact opposite of what you propose) while a woman is on the Pill.

    There are plenty of good arguments out there against the Pill; there’s no need to make biologically unsound and false ones.