Traditionally, the type of men that women wanted to marry embodied all the classic standards of male achievement: educated, physically fit, able to hold down a job. But in 1960, everything changed. A watershed moment produced an oral contraceptive known as “the pill.” No innovation has fundamentally altered the premises of civilization quite like birth control.

In The Sociological Tradition, Robert Nisbet referred to the Industrial and French Revolutions as the two great ideas of the western world.[1] No two events so dramatically altered civilization as significantly, their temporal overlap only intensifying their effects.

If the two Revolutions are the two great ideas of the Western world, then the third great idea must be birth control. No innovation has fundamentally altered the premises of civilization quite like birth control.

While liberals believe the central unit of life is the individual, conservatives believe that it is the family unit.[2] We are not a civilization of individuals, we are a civilization of families, with the family unit being the foundational brick on which civilization is built.[3]

The traditional family unit is predicated on the following biological premises: Men have an unlimited supply of sperm, and biologically speaking, can never truly know if they are the father of a child. The child may bear a strong resemblance to the man perceived to be the father, but for all he knows, it could be someone else. Therefore, men look to reproduce WIDELY.[4] Women, on the other hand, have a finite number of eggs. The clock is ticking for women, and time eventually runs out on their reproductive years when they reach menopause. From a biological perspective, sex will lead to pregnancy, which is a high-cost long-term enterprise. Women bear the cost of pregnancy more so than men, therefore sex is costlier to women. This high cost means women must be selective with whom they reproduce, so women look to reproduce WISELY.[5]

Men are buyers in the mating market, and women sellers; men are in supply, and women in demand.[6] As the demand for sex emanates largely on the male side, women have the leverage when it comes to negotiating the exchange between the sexes, and have traditionally served as gatekeepers.[7] Again, due to the high cost of sex to women, they have traditionally only sold sex to men at an equally high cost: marriage.[8]

Traditionally, the type of men that women wanted to marry embodied all the classic standards of male achievement: educated, physically fit, a good listener, able to hold down a job, a sense of humor, and other qualities women find appealing. Men worked hard in life to achieve these qualities to appeal enough to a woman. Hopefully, these qualities are enough to encourage consideration for marriage. In exchange for the fidelity of marriage, a woman would willingly give a man sex.[9]

Women were largely dependent on men for their safety, financial support, and various other needs. Women had little to no ability to control their fertility, and were often pregnant, or stuck caring for their young. Men therefore had to earn a living and become the providers. While this was not the case for 100% of the population, it was the case for most people.[10]

And then everything changed. In 1960, a watershed moment produced an oral contraceptive known as “the pill.”[11] By 1964, 6.5 million married women were using the pill, and by 1972, the Supreme Court extended access to the pill to unmarried women via Eisenstadt V. Baird; in 1973, Roe V. Wade fully legalized abortion.[12] The ease of application and the accessibility of the pill and abortion upended the civilizational premises described above.

Now, the high cost of sex associated with the risk of pregnancy can suddenly disappear, should a woman choose to use birth control or abort the pregnancy. Pregnancy and childrearing previously served as a barrier for women to enter the labor force and attain advanced or professional degrees, but now, thanks to birth control, women are free to participate in both. Women began entering higher education, the workforce, and began delaying childbearing at rates never seen previously.[13]

The benefits women and society at large incurred from these advances are highly beneficial. They help our economy, set the precedents for women as positive role models, they allow women the opportunity to choose to have a family when they are ready, and enable a typical household to have two earners.

Yet despite these seemingly beneficial characteristics, birth control and abortion have also dramatically increased certain problems and have caused serious consequences in ways most people never assumed would occur. This is why birth control is referred to as, “the paradox of the pill.”[14]

One of the most intriguing unintended consequences of the pill is that it lowered the cost of sex to women. Pregnancy made sex extremely costly for women, so therefore, women would traditionally only sell sex to men at the high cost of marriage. Now, without the risk of pregnancy to those willing to use either the pill or obtain an abortion, sex was suddenly cheap.

In his book, Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy, Mark Regnerus defined cheap sex as something that is

characterized by personal ease of sexual access and social perceptions of the same. Sex is cheap if women expect little in return for it and men do not have to supply much time, attention, resources, recognition, or fidelity in order to experience it.[15]

More succinctly, Dr. Regnerus defined cheap sex as charging and costing little.[16]

This cheap sex was ushered in by the technology shock of birth control and abortion. George Akerlof, Janet Yellen, and Michael Katz insightfully theorized that this technology shock increased out of wedlock births and altered a woman’s leverage in the marriage market, among other things.[17]

A woman who takes the pill, or will get an abortion, or both, has little to no cost to sex, and can therefore “sell” it to men cheaply. A woman who refrains from using contraception can only sell sex at a much higher cost. Which type of women will men prefer? The obvious answer is women selling cheap sex. The expression, “no one’s gonna want to buy the cow if you’re giving the milk away for free” comes to mind. Women on the pill are practically giving the milk away for free. How does someone selling the cow at full price compete? The answer is that they cannot compete.

Dr. Akerlof et al. identified this economic condition as follows: “a cost saving innovation almost invariably penalizes producers who, for whatever reason, fail to adopt it.”[18] Dr. Akerlof and his colleagues elaborated on the economic conundrum now facing women thusly:

Before technology shock, abstinence would be the norm for all women. After the technology shock those women who would use contraception or would be willing to obtain an abortion in the event of pregnancy or both engage in premarital sexual activity. However, those women who are not willing to obtain an abortion will also engage in sexual activity, since they correctly fear that if they abstain their partners would seek satisfaction elsewhere.[19]

The women who would otherwise refrain from premarital sex were priced out of the market by competitors offering the product much cheaper. Not only that, but now these women are basically forced to participate in premarital sex: “The advent of contraception and abortion used by others may result in an unwanted increase in sexual participation for those who reject the new technology.”[20]

Now, premarital sex is the cultural standard norm in relationships. As it always had before, sex leads to pregnancies, and without the high cost of marriage accompanying it, an increase of out-of-wedlock births followed.[21] This new standard increased the rate of single motherhood, which then decreased the stigma of single-motherhood.[22]

Birth control and abortion also made the entire process a choice.[23] The availability of birth control and abortion made the choice on the mother’s end axiomatic, but the optional nature of the bargain for exchange impacted male choice in a less obvious way: “The sexual revolution, by making the birth of the child the physical choice of the mother, makes marriage and child support a social choice of the father.”[24] The availability of female choice has also given men a choice to participate in parenthood. Should men choose to opt out—behavior not socially possible prior to birth control and abortion—women would be stuck as single mothers.

Dr. Akerlof and co. place the rise of single motherhood squarely on the shoulders of the technology shock of birth control and on-demand abortion. Additionally, they blame the technology shock specifically for the rise in out-of-wedlock births while debunking other theories relating to the rise in single motherhood like Charles Murray’s liberal welfare-state theory, and Julius Wilson’s job shortage theory.[25]

The problems associated with single motherhood, absentee fathers, divorced homes, and the relationship these issues have with both children and society at large are well documented. In In The Case for Carriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially, Marriage and Civilization: How Monogamy Made Us Human, Families Without Fathers: Fathers, Marriage, and Children in American Society, Family and Civilization, and Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem, the authors articulated issues such as the immense societal benefit to marriage, the individual benefits of marriage, the importance of fathers in co-raising children, and the importance of marriage towards reducing crime rates and other nefarious behaviors. These books illustrate that we are not a nation of individuals, but rather a nation of families. Civilizations ebb and flow based on the strengths of their families.[26] When there are too many weak families, a civilization will decay and collapse.[27] Cheap sex exacerbates or encourages much of the social and societal ills associated with weakening family units.

The above referenced texts systematically detailed the importance of marriage to civilizations and the result of what happens when too many unmarried, or weak families exist in a society. The importance of strong families and their relationship to civilizations is something many already know. Historians, those in the academic fields of family studies or human development, and many on both ends of the political spectrum are all aware of this causality.

One specific area that is not well known relates to cheap sex, civilizational strength, and the incentive sex with women provides men. Traditionally, the great incentive for men to achieve in the world was their desire to attract a woman so they could marry and then have sex with her. Cheap sex invalidates this incentive.

Dr. Regnerus quoted Professor Kathleen Vohs’ opinion on the subject:

Nowadays, young men can skip the wearying detour of getting education and career prospects to qualify for sex. Now he does not have to get married and accept all those costs, including promising to share his lifetime earnings and forego other women forever. Female sex partners are available without all that.[28]

Dr. Regnerus understood that, “one thing is clear . . . cheap sex does not make men more productive.”[29] Essentially, sex has forever been a motivating factor for male achievement. As people respond to incentives, cheap sex has removed this incentive for men.

Interestingly, Dr. Regnerus said that “this is not a new theory.”[30] Dr. Regnerus quoted Sigmund Freud on this issue: “Civilization is built largely on erotic energy that has been blocked, concentrated, accumulated, and redirected.”[31] This is a reference to Freud’s theory of sexual sublimation.

Freud’s theory was tested by J.D. Unwin in his study, Sex and Culture. Unwin surveyed 86 defunct civilizations and tested the relationship between sexual permissiveness and the strength of the civilization. Unwin found that every defunct civilization had prohibitions against premarital sex and extramarital sex in its infancy and ascendancy; when the sexual opportunities were relaxed to include premarital sex and extra-marital sex, the civilizations lost their energy and eventually collapsed.[32]

Unwin discussed W.H.R. Rivers’ interpretation of sexual sublimation: “By sublimation is meant a process in which an instinctive tendency . . . which would normally find expression in some kind of undesirable conduct, has its energy diverted into a channel in which it comes to have a positive social value.”[33] Sexual energy, when properly channeled, leads to great things. It is converted into productive means for a civilization, and this energy propels a civilization into prosperity.

Unwin quoted Freud’s analysis of this process:

We believe that civilization has been built up by sacrifices in gratification of the primitive impulses, and that it is to a great extent for ever being recreated as each individual repeats the sacrifice of his instinctive pleasures for the common good. The sexual are amongst the most important of the instinctive forces thus utilized: they are in this way sublimated, that is to say, their energy is turned aside from its sexual goal and diverted towards other ends, no longer sexual and socially more valuable.[34]

Unwin corroborated this thought with data from collapsed civilizations that have all but vanished. He concluded that, “the limitation of the sexual opportunity must be regarded as the cause of the cultural advance.”[35]

Unwin’s conclusions were shared by Napoleon Hill, a man who set out on a very different path, yet still arrived at the same destination. In Think and Grow Rich, Hill surveyed the 500 richest men in America to see if he could determine commonalities among them to distill the essence of the secrets to their success. Among other things, he learned that the richest men in America had personal moral and spiritual taboos against cheap sex, including personal gratification.[36] He referred to this practice as, “sex transmutation,” which is:

The transmutation of sex energy calls for the exercise of will-power, to be sure, but the reward is worth the effort. The desire for sexual expression is inborn and natural. The desire cannot, and should not be submerged or eliminated. But it should be given an outlet through forms of expression which enrich the body, mind, and spirit of man. If not given this form of outlet, through transmutation, it will seek outlets through purely physical channels.[37]

Self-control in sexual energy is the key to our success. This notion, that self-control is the key to our success, has been corroborated by a longitudinal study performed at Stanford University called, “The marshmallow test: mastering self-control.”[38]

Birth control and abortion have freed men and women from the self-control necessary to maintain and propel a civilization forward. Historically, when these restraints were relaxed, civilizations decayed and then disappeared.[39] Men no longer needed to mature into marriage material to acquire sex, and a glut of unmarried men in a civilization is highly toxic.

In Marriage and Civilization: How Monogamy Made Us Human, William Tucker explained that the salient factor in creating civil society is monogamous marriage. Men are capable—and more probable than women—of violent and criminal behavior.[40] The greatest deterrent to this undesirable behavior in men is in fact a stable marriage to a woman and living with her and any of their offspring.

When men do not have women and children depending upon them, when men are not marrying, these same men who would otherwise mature and grow up fail to do so.[41] When men are not needed or welcomed in their own homes, men are unmoored.[42] When there is nothing tethering men to society they never develop any incentive to grow up and leave the “frat house.”[43] These men without any incentives to mature and grow-up are left with idle hands, and idle hands are the Devil’s playground.

Contraceptives have given men idle hands, reduced their incentive to achieve, and contributed to a decline in male employment.[44] Not only has there been a dramatic rise in male unemployment, but in America today, there is a high rate of men who are out of the workforce altogether.[45] These men are not only unemployed, but are not looking for work whatsoever.[46] Sadly, “once a prime-age man removes himself from the labor force, there is a good—and increasing—chance he will remain an unworker for a long time.”[47] When men are no longer in the labor force, “the male retreat from the labor force has further exacerbated family breakdown, promoted welfare dependency, recast ‘disability’ into a viable alternative lifestyle, and routinized the support of men of prime working age by women.”[48]

Men not working, unmotivated, and able to obtain cheap sex all fall under the scope of idle hands. This has all been facilitated by birth control and abortion. Drs. Baumeister and Vohs understood this phenomenon in the following way:

Men’s access to sex has turned out to be maximized not by keeping women in an economically disadvantaged and dependent condition, but instead by letting them have abundant access and opportunity. . . . Once women had been granted wide opportunities for education and wealth, they no longer had to hold sex hostage.[49]

The very opportunities birth control affords women are also giving men cheap sex, which has a detrimental effect on male behavior.

The very opportunities birth control affords women have also detrimentally affected women. Birth control and abortion, by increasing illegitimate births, has led to “the feminization poverty”; men are no longer forced to marry the women they impregnate, yet women still overwhelmingly bear the cost of pregnancy.[50, 51] Oddly, the financial gains by women are not making them happier, as, “Women whose husbands are the breadwinners tend to be happier than other women.”[52] Female sexual risk has been reduced, educational and financial attainment has risen, yet life is now, “more challenging on them relationally. . . . the route to marriage—something the vast majority still holds as a goal—is more fraught with years and failed relationships than in the past.”[53] Basically, “Once familiar structures, narratives, and rituals about romance and marriage—how to date, falling in love, whom to marry, why, and when—have largely collapsed.”[54]

The increase in the number of partners and failed relationships has a negative effect on women. For women reporting 20 or more sexual partners in life, they self-reported higher rates of depression, anxiety, infidelity, divorce, sexually transmitted diseases, and are generally less happy with life.[55] Essentially, cheap sex and sex without commitment does not make women happy the way it does for men.[56]

A widely circulated piece of scholarship called, “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness,” discussed the notion that there has never been a better time to be a woman, yet women are now more unhappy than ever—both in absolute terms, and relative to men.[57] They asked the following question: “This finding of a decline in women’s well-being relative to that of men raises questions about whether modern social constructs have made women worse off.”[58]

The important syntax here is the phrase, “social constructs.” A pillar of contemporary liberal thought, particularly in the contemporary academic discipline of “intersectionality,” is that society is an arbitrary social construct.[59] Nothing in this world has any meaning; everything that we, as a society, do, is predicated on perpetuating the power structure of white, male, able-bodied, cisgendered, heterosexuals.[60] Modernity and liberalism have been telling women that all these traditional norms regarding marriage, dating, sexuality, and gender roles are completely arbitrary and meaningless; they exist exclusively to maintain the patriarchal authority of men over women.

Nisbet delineated the tenets of liberalism in, The Sociological Tradition, where he explained that: “The dominant objective . . . were those of release: release of individual from ancient social ties and of the mind from fettering traditions.”[61] Emancipating women from all the traditional bonds of marriage and family is thus the goal, a goal that has been successfully accomplished with largely negative results.[62]

Perhaps then society is not an arbitrary social construct. Perhaps there is in fact meaning and truth to our societal customs and to our societal norms relating to gender. We have our traditional gender norms because men and women are different, and these differences are biological, not arbitrary social constructs.[63]

The issues addressed here reflect more of a micro-approach to civilizational energy and civilizational decay. By taking a step backwards, we can take a macro-approach and discuss the issues from a theoretical and philosophical perspective.

This discussion is a debate between conflicting visions about the human condition. The philosophical position liberal progressives take is called, “Meliorism.” Meliorism was the Enlightenment era term for progressivism.[64] The important feature of Meliorism in this discussion is the natural goodness of Man, corrupted by society.[65] This aspect of progressivism believes that human beings are born benevolent, and evil and problems are introduced to us from society.[66] By fixing society—adjusting the norms and standards—we can eradicate the problems society introduces to us.[67] Society is also perfectible with the right tinkering, and there is nothing out of the reach of Man to improve.[68]

Conservatives believe that the problems of the world do not come from without, nor is Man born naturally benevolent.[69] Problems come from within Man’s fallen and imperfect nature, and no amount of societal tinkering can ever eradicate evil.[70] Conservatives believe in the tradition of natural law.[71] To oversimplify, natural law theory is the belief that God or nature—whatever you choose to believe—ordained the world before us with an ironclad, non-negotiable, and immutable law: the natural law. When Man chooses to violate the natural law, we fall.[72]

To the liberal Meliorist, the human condition is alterable, and we can do whatever we want to society. It is ours to mold and perfect. To the conservative, the human condition is tragic. Whether we like it or not, the world is a certain way, and there are rules we must follow, for when we ignore these rules, they lead to our downfall. Life is not fair, and we must learn to cope with that fact.

Let’s use real estate as a simple metaphor for interpreting the conflicting visions, with society serving as the real estate. Liberals believe they own the real estate. They are free to alter the property as they wish because they own it. Conservatives believe that we do not own the real estate, but that we are merely renters. The lease agreement was drawn up before our time, and cannot be altered, nor can we mute or suppress some of the terms.

Etched in stone in the lease agreement of life is the fact that civilizations collapse when the sexual opportunities are easily gratified, especially once those opportunities are extended to women. Read Unwin’s unfortunate conclusion:

The subsequent loss of social energy after the emancipation of women . . . has been due not to the emancipation but to the extension of sexual opportunity which has always accompanied it. In human records there is no instance of female emancipation which has not been accompanied by an extension of sexual opportunity.[73]

When cheap sex is easily attainable, a society crumbles: “as soon as the sexual opportunity of the society . . . was extended, the energy of the society . . . decreased and finally disappeared.”[74]

For whatever reason, cheap sex and sexual opportunity in a civilization allotted to women violates the natural law. When we violate the natural law, we fall. As Russell Kirk knew: “Deny a fact, and that fact will be your master.”[75]

Birth control, and to a lesser extent, abortion, are bringing about the destruction of our civilization. It is now only a matter of time before Western civilization collapses. According to Unwin, we cross the River Rubicon three generations from when the norms about sexual opportunities are relaxed.[76]

We are no different from any other civilization that has come before us and violated this aspect of the natural law. Do not be fooled by modernity and technological advancements that appear to make us better than previous generations. Sooner or later, Western civilization as we know it will join the ill-fated annals of history as just that: history.

The Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics as we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.

Bibliography:

Akerlof, George A., Janet L. Yellen, and Michael Katz. “An analysis of out-of-wedlock childbearing in the United States.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 111, no. 2 (1996).

Akerlof, George A. and Janet L. Yellen. “New mothers, not married: technology shock, the demise of shotgun marriages, and the increase in out-of-wedlock-births.” The Brookings Institute, September 1, 1996.

Beauchamp, Andrew and Catherine R. Pakulak. “The Paradox of the Pill: Heterogeneous Effects of Oral Contraceptive Access.” Journal of Economic Inquiry 57, no. 2 (2015).

Blankenhorn, David. Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1995.

Eberstadt, Mary. Adam and Eve After the Pill: The Paradoxes of the Sexual Revolution. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius, 2012.

Eberstadt, Nicholas. Men Without Work: America’s Invisible Crisis. West Conshohoken, PA: Templeton Press, 2016.

George, Robert P. In Defense of Natural Law. New York, NY: Oxford University, 2001.

Hill, Napoleon. Think and Grow Rich. Shippensburg, PA: Sound Wisdom, 1937.

Kessler, Steven. “Understanding the Most Important Phrase in Social Justice.” The American Thinker, January 12, 2019.

Kessler, Steven. “An ‘Ever Better’ Constitution? Progressivism as Ideology and the U.S. Constitution.” The Voegelin View, September 30, 2018.

Kirk, Russell. “The Moral Imagination. The Russell Kirk Center, May 31, 2007.

May, Elaine Tyler. America and the Pill: A History of Promise, Peril, and Liberation. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2010.

Mischell, Walter. The Marshmallow Test: Mastering Self-Control. San Francisco, CA: Bay Back Books, 2014.

Nisbet, Robert. The Sociological Tradition. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1966.

Popenoe, David. Families Without Fathers: Fathers, Marriage and Children in American Society. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2009.

Regnerus, Mark. Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy. New York, NY: Oxford University, 2017.

Sax, Leonard. Why Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know About the Merging Science of Sex Differences. New York, NY: Harmony Books, 2005.

Stevenson, Betsey, and Justin Wolfers. “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness.” NBER Working Papers Series: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2009.

Tucker, William. Marriage and Civilization: How Monogamy Made Us Human. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2014.

Unwin, J.D. Sex and Culture. Oxford, England: Oxford University, 1934.

Waite, Linda and Maggie Gallagher. The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially. New York, NY: Random House, 2000.

Wilson, James. The Marriage Problem: How Our Culture Has Weakened Families. New York, NY: Perennial Publishers, 2002.

Zimmerman, Carl. Family and Civilization. Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 1924.

Notes:

[1] Nisbet, R. (1966). The Sociological Tradition. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Zimmerman, C. (1924). Family and Civilization. Wilmington, DE: ISI Books.

[4] Wilson, J. (2002). The Marriage Problem: How Our Culture Has Weakened Families. New York, NY: Perennial Publishers.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Regnerus, M. (2017). Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy. New York, NY: Oxford University.

[7 ] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Wilson, J. (2002). The Marriage Problem: How Our Culture Has Weakened Families. New York, NY: Perennial Publishers.

[11] May, E. (2010). America + the pill. New York, NY: Basic Books.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Wilson, J. (2002). The Marriage Problem: How Our Culture Has Weakened Families. New York, NY: Perennial Publishers.

[14] Beauchamp, A., & Pakulak, C. (2015). The paradox of the pill. Journal of Economic Inquiry. Retrieved from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ecin.12757

[15] Regnerus, M. (2017). Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy. New York, NY: Oxford University.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Akerlof, G. & Yellen, J. (1996). “New mothers, not married: technology shock, the demise of shotgun marriages, and the increase in out-of-wedlock-births.” The Brookings Institute.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Zimmerman, C. (1924). Family and Civilization. Wilmington, DE: ISI Books.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Regnerus, M. (2017). Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy. New York, NY: Oxford University.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Unwin, J.D. (1934). Sex and Culture. Oxford, England: Oxford University.

[33] Ibid

[34] Ibid.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Hill, N. (1937). Think and Grow Rich. Retrieved from: https://www.sacred-texts.com/nth/tgr/tgr16.htm

[37] Hill, N. (1937). Think and Grow Rich. Retrieved from: https://www.sacred-texts.com/nth/tgr/tgr16.htm

[38] Mischell, W. (2014). The Marshmallow Test: Mastering Self-Control. San Francisco, CA: Bay Back Books.

[39] Unwin, J.D. (1934). Sex and Culture. Oxford, England: Oxford University.

[40] Tucker, W. (2014). Marriage and Civilization: How Monogamy Made Us Human. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing.

[41] Popenoe, D. (2009. Families Without Fathers: Fathers, Marriage and Children in American Society. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

[42] Ibid.

[43] Ibid.

[44] Eberstadt, N. (2016). Men Without Work: America’s Invisible Crisis. West Conshohoken, PA: Templeton Press.

[45] Ibid.

[46] Ibid.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Ibid.

[49] Regnerus, M. (2017). Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy. New York, NY: Oxford University.

[50] Akerlof, G. & Yellen, J. (1996). “New mothers, not married: technology shock, the demise of shotgun marriages, and the increase in out-of-wedlock-births.” The Brookings Institute.

[51] Akerlof, G., Yellen, J., & Katz, M. (1996). “An analysis of out-of-wedlock childbearing in the United States.” The quarterly Journal of Economics, 111(2).

[52] Eberstadt, M. (2012). Adam and Eve After the Pill: The Paradoxes of the Sexual Revolution. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius.

[53] Regnerus, M. (2017). Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy. New York, NY: Oxford University.

[54] Ibid.

[55] Ibid.

[56] Ibid.

[57] Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2009). “The paradox of declining female happiness.” NBER Working Papers Series: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from: https://www.nber.org/papers/w14969.pdf

[58] Ibid.

[59] Steven Kessler, “Understanding the Most Important Phrase in Social Justice,” The American Thinker, January 12, 2019.

[60] Ibid.

[61] Nisbet, R. (1966). The Sociological Tradition. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

[62] Eberstadt, M. (2012). Adam and Eve After the Pill: The Paradoxes of the Sexual Revolution. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius.

[63] Eberstadt, M. (2012). Adam and Eve After the Pill: The Paradoxes of the Sexual Revolution. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius; Wilson, J. (2002). The Marriage Problem: How Our Culture Has Weakened Families. New York, NY: Perennial Publishers; Sax, L. (2005). Why Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know About the Merging Science of Sex Differences. New York, NY: Harmony Books; Regnerus, M. (2017). Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy. New York, NY: Oxford University.

[64] Kesslers, S. (2018). “An ‘ever better’ constitution? Progressivism as ideology and the U.S. Constitution.” The Voegelin View. Retrieved from: https://voegelinview.com/an-ever-better-constitution-progressivism-as-ideology-and-the-u-s-constitution/

[65] Ibid.

[66] Ibid.

[67] Ibid.

[68] Ibid.

[69] Ibid.

[70] Ibid.

[71] George, R. (2001). In Defense of Natural Law. New York, NY: Oxford University.

[72] Ibid.

[73] Unwin, J.D. (1934). Sex and Culture. Oxford, England: Oxford University.

[74] Ibid.

[75] Kirk, R. (1981). The moral imagination. The Russell Kirk Center. Retrieved from: https://kirkcenter.org/imagination/the-moral-imagination/

[76] Unwin, J.D. (1934). Sex and Culture. Oxford, England: Oxford University.

The featured image is “Mother and Child” (1883) by Christian Krohg (1852-1925), courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

All comments are moderated and must be civil, concise, and constructive to the conversation. Comments that are critical of an essay may be approved, but comments containing ad hominem criticism of the author will not be published. Also, comments containing web links or block quotations are unlikely to be approved. Keep in mind that essays represent the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Imaginative Conservative or its editor or publisher.

Leave a Comment
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Voiced by Amazon Polly