Freely available birth control → Fewer direct consequences to having sex → Men have sex with more women → Men more likely to think of women only as sexual objects
I was complaining about you, not the Universe. If your model of reality includes “women are automatons” as a feature, your model is not very likely to be correct.
Fewer direct consequences to having sex → Men have sex with more women
Why not state the conclusion here as: People have more sex. Just as men have more sexual partners, why wouldn’t women have more sexual partners.
When phrased like that, the next conclusion (Women increasingly thought of as sex objects) requires a bit more justification. One could assert that women naturally have fewer partners than men, but surely some or most of that is explained by the relative ease of avoiding the consequences of pregnancy.
Men more likely to think of women only as sexual objects
Modern western societies have women integrated with men in most professions, whereas societies that highly limit sexual behavior with women seem to be the ones who turn women into something other than humans primarily.
Reqiuring women to be coevered head to toe if they appear in public, requiring them to only appear in public when they are with a man from their family who can protect them, and limiting their rights to own property, work, drive, and attend schools are all features of “highly moral” societies and essentially absent from “immoral” societies.
That’s a reasonable definition of “disrespect.”
Why should one believe that freely available birth control is likely to cause disrespect towards women?
Freely available birth control → Fewer direct consequences to having sex → Men have sex with more women → Men more likely to think of women only as sexual objects
Doesn’t this explanation rather rob women of agency ?
If you feel annoyed at the universe for robbing women of agency in this instance, go ahead. The universe doesn’t care.
I was complaining about you, not the Universe. If your model of reality includes “women are automatons” as a feature, your model is not very likely to be correct.
“Agency” in this sense (social and moral agency, I’d call it) obviously =/= “Libertarian free will”.
What does this have to do with the discussion?
Why not state the conclusion here as: People have more sex. Just as men have more sexual partners, why wouldn’t women have more sexual partners.
When phrased like that, the next conclusion (Women increasingly thought of as sex objects) requires a bit more justification. One could assert that women naturally have fewer partners than men, but surely some or most of that is explained by the relative ease of avoiding the consequences of pregnancy.
I was presenting a possible causal mechanism, not an argument. The argument is that the Pope’s prediction did in fact come true.
In case it isn’t clear, there is not agreement that the second prediction did come true.
(or the fourth. And the first is simply argument by definition).
Here is Catholic John C Wright describing what they mean.
Modern western societies have women integrated with men in most professions, whereas societies that highly limit sexual behavior with women seem to be the ones who turn women into something other than humans primarily.
Reqiuring women to be coevered head to toe if they appear in public, requiring them to only appear in public when they are with a man from their family who can protect them, and limiting their rights to own property, work, drive, and attend schools are all features of “highly moral” societies and essentially absent from “immoral” societies.