A surprisingly candid admission on multiple fronts:

 http://www.businessinsider.com/time-to-admit-it-the-church-has-always-been-right-on-birth-control-2012-2

I didn't see this posted anywhere, sorry if it's a repeat

Men are now considered to be fulfilling their duties merely by paying court-ordered child-support. That's a pretty dramatic lowering of standards for "fatherhood."

At one time men did not have to support illegitimate children.  Child-support is about  women choosing men who do not want a family life with them to be the fathers of their children.  The women are the one's choosing the men, failing to marry them, and often kicking them out in a divorce.  Child support is about women kicking men out of the house, not about men being held to a lower standard.  And once again, contraception doesn't illegitimacy.  The fornication and promiscuity of women causes illegitimacy, not evil rakes taking advantage of women without wills of their own.

Let's try giving the author the benefit of the doubt for the sake of arguing other points.

Well I have a problem with endorsing someone just because they say something that doesn't often get said.  It's true he said something highly unusual, but then again, this is on the internet, and the issue has been in the news, so he was given a platform to be "contrarian."

He tries to make birth control an issue of the behavior of men rather than women.  Everything has to be decided in terms of "what's good for women."  Catholics have to drop that attitude if anything is going to change.  

(I could easily see this article being written by the sort of priest who turns around and asks a young pregnant woman that "if she was going to offend God anyway" why didn't she prevent conception)

He quotes Paul VI and then they even have that picture with the words "sin twice" - does Benedict XVI still hold to that?

This would not be in the businessinsider unless the owners wanted it to be.  If it wasn't the editorialist who publish something like this, someone else could have written something similar.  And predictably the editorial is framed entirely in terms of "what's good for women."  As though women aren't themselves responsible for the rates of divorce, illegitimacy, and the use of contraception.  

So, you're right that it would be wrong to blame the actions of such women on men, that would be a mistake. However, 1)he gets *much* right and 2)the separation of sex from reproduction has definitely polluted the minds of such women that act out by dressing in such garb, to the point that they seek to attract attention, the wrong kind, because there will be no (temporal) consequence to numerous superficial paramours.

So, while men aren't putting the gun to their head to dress and act in such a way, these women are still influenced by the pill.

The "white knight" woman pandering approach to these issues ensures that nothing serious is ever done about them.  He's managed to somehow make the use of the birth control pill into something that allows men to do bad things, as though women don't have a hand it it.  

It is precisely because that attitude is the default that this article seems so out of the ordinary.  It's precisely how we got to this point.

So long as issues where women make all the choices are framed in terms of men not doing what women want, then it should not surprise us how we've ended up where we are.

The difference between the mainstream "pro-life" position and attitudes of "pro-choicers" is unfortunately not nearly as great as it could be, and that's because the issue is not framed in terms of justice, but in terms of "What's good for women?"

You make several good points here.

I need to digest this for a bit. You've definitely helped me think.