>
> Bryan said:
> > Of course that would piss off the anti-choicers because
> > they are less about pro-life than about female
> > promiscuity,
>
> I kind of doubt that.
>
> (Mind you, I REALLY hate to say that.)
>
> The reason I'm saying it is that, again, in highly conservative/religious communities, young men and women alike who refuse to find mates AND refuse to become religious or conservative missionaries, tend to get treated very badly even if they don't HAVE sex lives. (Unfortunately, liberals aren't too kind to heterosexual men who refuse to get married either. Liberals tend to forget that if women have the right to stay single and childfree, so do men.)
>
> What's more, if a man and a woman are both over 60 and having a premarital (not adulterous) affair, unless they're well-known as pillars of their church, are the conservative church leaders really likely to "out" them as sinners?
>
> Most of the time, I suspect, the leaders don't really care about those couples. What they ARE opposed to is young people taking control of their own futures by not having babies, whether through abortion, birth control or celibacy.

> Childfree singles often have more money - and they vote. Many people see childfree WOMEN, with their political power, as more terrifying than childfree men - but who knows why. Both have the power to change society greatly, as the childfree Ralph Nader did. (As anyone knows, he's had no shortage of enemies in Big Business.)

Regarding that second-to-last paragraph, I just found this recent article.

"The Childfree are Ungovernable: Why the capitalist ruling class wants you to have as many children as possible."

https://beneaththepavement.substack.com/p/the-childfree-are-ungovernable-capitalism
(it's shortish)

The only quibble I have is with this:

"In short: children — not growing older, as is usually stated — make you more conservative."

Not exactly. Ask any teacher who's ever been blamed for a lazy student's bad grades.