I like to collect studies on my blog so that I can always find them when I get into a debate. One of the things I like to argue against is recreational premarital sex. It’s pretty hard to argue this with non-Christians if all you are going to do is quote the Bible. But you can make a pretty good case that will win you the argument from studies, and so I keep a nice collection of studies to use.

Here’s the report from The Federalist:

Oral contraceptives raise the risk of depression, according to a new international study that surveyed more than 264,000 women. Teenagers were at the highest risk, with a 130 percent higher risk of depression in women who started using birth control as adolescents, compared to a 92 percent higher risk among those who started as adults.

The study provides conclusive results to a growing body of research linking oral birth control with the use of anti-depressants, depression diagnoses, and depressive symptoms.

While adult users saw a decrease to more normal risk after using “the pill” for more than two years or getting off the pill, teenage users were still at increased risk even after stopping usage.

Very interesting. I clicked on the link to the study and made sure it was peer-reviewed. It was. So what do we learn from this?

Well, this is not the first time I am hearing about the emotional and mental problems with birth control pills. So, I think the lesson here is to definitely do your research first, so that you don’t get involved with things that will cause you problems later. The woman who told me about had tried to go on them, but she immediately noticed how much it changed her moods, and she went off them. I think it caused her some problems in her life, because she ended up taking 5 years to complete her degree, instead of the normal for. So, using these things could really cost you.

Now you might be wondering about other birth control methods, and the team that did this study has a plan for future work:

This study only examined combination birth control pills, but researchers plan to study other contraceptive options.

“In a future study, we plan to examine different formulations and methods of administration. Our ambition in comparing different contraceptive methods is to give women even more information to help them [m]ake well-informed decisions about their contraceptive options,” Johansson said.

The article also notes (with links, which I removed):

In other studies, birth control methods have also been linked to increased risk of heart attack and stroke, blood clots, breast cancer, and cervical cancer.

Despite significant evidence of risk, researchers still insist that birth control is safe to use…

Normally, I am pretty hard on women on this blog. I feel like they make way too many decisions by following the crowd, instead of thinking about what they want in the long-term, and then making decisions that are likely to get those results – whatever anyone else thinks. I think that women need to be smarter than that, and instead of forming their views by peer pressure, they need to form their views based on truth. And truth is not on the bottom shelf.

I see women getting taught all about sexual topics by public school teachers, entertainers, athletes, celebrities, etc. It makes no sense to me. These people are insulated from real life, for one reason or another. And then I see Planned Parenthood going into the schools and teaching children about birth control and sex. They make money by getting these kids to become sexual active and then pay them to get abortions. Young women cannot trust women their own age to know about studies. They can’t trust teachers with degrees in English. They can’t trust celebrities, entertainers and athletes – they probably cannot even read, much less read studies. Women have to do their own research and make their own plans that work for them.

Today women are being taught from preschool to college and beyond, that they need to use their “young years” to seek happiness by playing the field with tall, hot men who give them tingles. They are told to delay marriage (boring) and children (demanding) for as long as possible, in order to have no-commitment sex with the hottest men they can get. Somehow, having sex with a lot of hot men is thought to raise the value of the woman. It builds her self-esteem, or something. This is objectively stupid behavior. But this is why they jump all over birth control, because it helps them to do stupid things that they’ve been told to do. They don’t even know the long-term effects of the behavior they’re doing. It’s monkey-see, monkey-do. The blind leading the blind.

So, I think it’s good for us as grown-ups to point them towards the data that they should know about. They can certainly ignore it, and go with their feelings. But some of them will prefer to get the real truth about how the world works, and those are the ones we need to reach. They should at least have a choice to make.

By the way, I’m not saying that it’s a bad idea to give someone a Bible. I got one when I was young, and that worked for me. But for people who ask questions, you need to have the studies ready. Always be ready for anyone who asks you questions about why you believe what you believe.

There is so much that I would like to say about the video below. For me, it really captures what feminism has taught women about men and relationships. Traditional male roles are: protect, provide, lead on moral issues, lead on spiritual issues. Well, young college-educated single women are certainly interested in protection and provision, but they have zero interest in male leadership.

First, here is the video:

So, this is a young, college-educated, progressive woman. She looks to be about 29 years old. She’s probably been having a lot of fun in bars and night clubs, hooking up with hot guys and running up student loans for worthless non-STEM degrees. But 29 is the age when many young feminist women start to notice that their friends are getting married, and so they feel that it’s time for them to “keep up” with their friends by also getting married.

The woman in the video doesn’t want a man in order to help him with any of his problems. She doesn’t want a man because she likes the way he leads her or makes decisions. She wants to get married because she wants to help herself to what a husband offers. Specifically, she wants to help herself to money, ability to repair a car, ability to renovate a house, vacations, travel, social respectability, social status, etc. That’s what she wants. She doesn’t want obligations to a man or obligations to children. She wants what a man and children to benefit her.

So, what this woman in the video is really asking for is two of the four traditional male roles. She wants a man to do protecting and providing. But she has no interest in a man who has firm views on morality or religion. She wants a sperm-donor, an ATM, and a handyman. But she doesn’t want a man who is going to tell her to do anything for God, or for him, or for the kids. No interest at all in a man who will want to lead the family in a Bible study, or protest sex-selection abortions.  Religion and morality are disgusting to her – they’re brakes on her selfish pursuit of happiness. She likes men who let her make decisions, and who blame others when she is at fault. If babies get in the way of her career, he should approve of her killing them. If two men want to raise a motherless child bought from a surrogate, he should approve of that, too. She wants a man who will put his own kids in daycare and public schools so she can buy a Coach handbag and go on vacation in Barbados. Too bad for the kids. That’s what she wants in a man – “don’t judge”.

But the real key point in this story for me is how this woman expects a secular left man to respect moral obligations. A secular left man thinks that the universe is an accident, that human beings evolved from slime, and that humans have no free will.  Atheists don’t believe that God holds people accountable for their moral decisions. They think that morality is just a set of conventions that vary by time and place. On atheism, there are no moral absolutes, just conventions that vary by time and place. And atheists only follow those conventions if following them makes them feel good or look good to others during their lifetimes. They support transing kids because they want their college professor or their boss to like them. Who cares about what happens to those kids?

On atheism, morality is just agreeing with the people you want to like you. It’s not about taking self-sacrificial stands to protect the weak. Survival of the fittest. That’s what atheists believe in. And this woman thinks that she is going to find a man who will have moral obligations towards her when those obligations go against his self-interest. She doesn’t want any obligations to him, but she wants him to have lots of moral obligations to her. Absolutely insane.

She also thinks that a man who agrees with her on adult-first, kids-last policies is going to sign up for a lifelong, faithful, marriage commitment. These days, it’s hard to get even a good man to agree to take risks with feminist false accusations on college campuses, feminist divorce courts and feminist “me too” workplaces. But why would a man who has a secular leftist worldview want to sacrifice his own interests for such a risky enterprise? Today, only men have obligations. Women are always the victims of someone else. In any disagreement between a man and a woman, the man is always guilty, and the woman is always the victim. The whole society is set up to relieve her of any accountability for her actions. All the costs must be paid by men. Why would a secular leftist man – who has ZERO rational foundation for morality – get legally obligated to a woman who holds that much power over him?

The woman in the video probably thinks that when it comes to marriage, men will just marry when they are impressed with a woman’s appearance, and go crazy from being “in love”. That’s why secular left women spend so much money on their appearance – not just for make-up or clothes, but on manicures, pedicures, and cosmetic surgery, too. Only stupid men marry secular left women because they are “in love” with her fake appearance.

If the woman in the video is expecting a man to commit to her for life, and be faithful, and be a good father, then she’s going to have to 1) resign herself to male leadership – because that’s what good men want, and 2) upgrade her religious and moral views to match those of a good man. Otherwise, her situation is hopeless. Good men don’t get married to secular left feminists. As more young women adopt feminism, you can expect to see the marriage rate decline.

I worked in places where I met Democrat voters who also attended church. And when Obama was being elected, and same-sex “marriage” was being legalized, I remember what they would say to me. They said “how would gay marriage affect your marriage?” And I explained to them how the redefinition of marriage to eliminate the complementary sexes would have a HUGE effect on society.

Here are a couple of stories showing what comes after same-sex “marriage”.

The first one is from the Washington Free Beacon:

California lawmakers are advancing a bill that would redefine the inability of men to get pregnant as “infertility” and entitle them to insurance-covered fertility treatments.

The legislation, which passed in the Senate late last month and is about to be taken up by the Assembly, would require employer-sponsored insurance plans to cover all nonexperimental fertility treatments, including artificial insemination of pregnancy surrogates. Supporters of the legislation have touted it as an overdue step toward “fertility equality” for LGBT people.

Freshman state senator Caroline Menjivar (D.), who coauthored the bill with Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks (D.), said: “It will ensure that queer couples no longer have to pay more out of pocket to start families than non-queer families. … This bill is critical to achieving full-lived equality for LGBTQ+ people, as well as advancing well-rounded and comprehensive health care for all Californians.”

So, what are the consequences of this policy? Well, insurance companies are going to have to charge more for premiums. And since Obama made health insurance mandatory, that means that everyone will have to pay more for health care. But wait. This isn’t really health care is it? No, this is redistribution of wealth from married homes to LGBT homes. So, Christian husbands and wives who have children the natural way will have to pay the costs for IVF and surrogacy. This is tens of thousands of dollars.

What else? Well, we’re going to be making a whole bunch of fatherless and/or motherless children. Think about your own upbringing, how much time you spent with your parents. Even if they were divorced, you could probably see them at least once a year. But in this case, these children will never know one or both of their parents. They are just commodities to the LGBT couples, who just want to be “as good as you”.

Here’s the second article from Daily Signal:

A recently amended California bill would add “affirming” the sexual transition of a child to the state’s standard for parental responsibility and child welfare—making any parent who doesn’t affirm transgenderism for their child guilty of abuse under California state law.

[…]California courts would be given complete authority under Section 3011 of California’s Family Code to remove a child from his or her parents’ home if parents disapprove of LGBTQ+ ideology.

By changing the definition of what constitutes the “health, safety, and welfare of [a] child,” schools, churches, hospitals, and other organizations interacting with children would be required to affirm “gender transitions” in minors by default—or risk charges of child abuse.

Child abuse. And this is interesting – there will be lots more secular leftists spying into Christian families:

AB 957 could also expand which organizations provide “evidence” of gender “nonaffirmation” to California’s courts.

Because of the addition of “gender affirmation” to the qualifications of California’s standards for “health, safety, and welfare,” California’s courts would now be able to accept reports of gender “abuse” from progressive activist organizations—as long as they claim to provide “services to victims of sexual assault or domestic violence.”

In essence, a boy could report his parents to his local school’s Gay-Straight Alliance club or other LGBTQ+ organization, who could then report the boy’s parents for child abuse.

I’ve already blogged about the Senior Software Engineer at Apple who was married to the ESG exec who divorced him and transed his kid. The courts sided with her, and stripped him of all parental rights. It’s only going to get worse from here.

I have friends who live in California. Young friends, who have just graduated college and are trying to find work. I warn them about the possibility of them losing their kids. They seem to think that all these laws will be struck down. The country that I left 25 years ago has now becoming a tyranny. My friends who stayed are wishing they had left too. When I warn people in California to stop building their careers and lives there, and start somewhere else, they mostly ignore me. But I’m really good at foreseeing threats.