When oral contraceptives were first approved by the FDA in 1960, critics at the time warned that “the foundations of contemporary sexual morality may be threatened” by the ensuing promiscuity
Were they wrong?
Were they wrong?
> Were they wrong?
Yes. Totally and absolutely wrong. Practice based on fear of consequence is not morality. Weakening the affect of consequence changed exactly nobody's morality. Anyone who claims a morality that is followed only by being based on enforcement through physical harm is pretty messed up.
Promiscuity levels changed with the change in cost of the alternatives. Morality of people making those choices did not budge one iota.
Disagree with that all you like, you might well be right. I claim whatever it is it's a long way from promiscuity increasing with a decline in consequence for sexual activity from saying anything about the morals of those who would have loved to fornicate but lacked opportunity prior. Or indeed those so easily swayed by the "everyone does it" argument and were making a virtue of their lack off reasonable opportunity. Reasonable people may disagree with that of course.
Usually this kind of thing is imposed morality which isn't individual morals. "I want everyone else to follow what I think is moral by making (sex/drugs/other thing I dislike) have dire consequences through policy because I can't convince _them_ to do the right thing because _they_ lack [my] morals."
I don't think driving more slowly to stay under the speed limit in an enforcement blitz is moral behavior. I think driving as safely as practicable for the safety of pedestrians when there is no enforcement (eg in a poor and corrupt country) might well be moral.
If you have different definition of what morality is, that's ok but there's not much to discuss.
So what?
So there's a value judgement about whether that change in the behavior of others is a good thing. So "morality" which is where this came in.
You want to make cases about the pill adoption and STD prevalence getting worse, go right ahead. It is different data and a very different case to make. Also far from obvious which way it goes, fwiw.
>So what?
It sounds relevant if the pill was introduced and got legalized on the grounds that it would not cause that kind of change but e.g. only help married couples to plan their pregnancies.
The amount of teen sex has reduced drastically since those days. At least in the US. And the amount of unprotected sec has reduced even more.
Kids these days are having far less sex overall and far far less unsafe sex than their parents, who were having less than their parents.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-bro...
[2] https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/images/2014/YRBS-AIDS-2...
[3] http://teendecision.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/historic-...