"Why Monogamy Matters"

[Dick Whitman]

Thought about posting this on the Huckabee thread, but thought that it wasn't quite aligned enough.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/opinion/07douthat.html?_r=1&hp

Douthat cites some research that shows that young Americans are waiting longer to have sex, linking it (I think) to the abstinence movement. Much like Huckabee, it is an attempt by a social conservative to give a policy foundation to a movement we reflexively see as pushing religion on us. An interesting read, if nothing else, and I wouldn't mind reading the book he cites to.

Yes, in 1950 as in 2011, most people didn’t go virgins to their marriage beds. But earlier generations of Americans waited longer to have sex, took fewer sexual partners across their lifetimes, and were more likely to see sleeping together as a way station on the road to wedlock.

And they may have been happier for it. That’s the conclusion suggested by two sociologists, Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker, in their recent book, “Premarital Sex in America.” Their research, which looks at sexual behavior among contemporary young adults, finds a significant correlation between sexual restraint and emotional well-being, between monogamy and happiness — and between promiscuity and depression.

 

[outofplace]

Thought about posting this on the Huckabee thread, but thought that it wasn't quite aligned enough.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/opinion/07douthat.html?_r=1&hp

Douthat cites some research that shows that young Americans are waiting longer to have sex, linking it (I think) to the abstinence movement. Much like Huckabee, it is an attempt by a social conservative to give a policy foundation to a movement we accurately see as pushing religion on us. An interesting read, if nothing else, and I wouldn't mind reading the book he cites to.

Yes, in 1950 as in 2011, most people didn’t go virgins to their marriage beds. But earlier generations of Americans waited longer to have sex, took fewer sexual partners across their lifetimes, and were more likely to see sleeping together as a way station on the road to wedlock.

And they may have been happier for it. That’s the conclusion suggested by two sociologists, Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker, in their recent book, “Premarital Sex in America.” Their research, which looks at sexual behavior among contemporary young adults, finds a significant correlation between sexual restraint and emotional well-being, between monogamy and happiness — and between promiscuity and depression.

Fixed that for you. Intentions matter, whether you like it or not.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Thought about posting this on the Huckabee thread, but thought that it wasn't quite aligned enough.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/opinion/07douthat.html?_r=1&hp

Douthat cites some research that shows that young Americans are waiting longer to have sex, linking it (I think) to the abstinence movement. Much like Huckabee, it is an attempt by a social conservative to give a policy foundation to a movement we accurately see as pushing religion on us. An interesting read, if nothing else, and I wouldn't mind reading the book he cites to.

Yes, in 1950 as in 2011, most people didn’t go virgins to their marriage beds. But earlier generations of Americans waited longer to have sex, took fewer sexual partners across their lifetimes, and were more likely to see sleeping together as a way station on the road to wedlock.

And they may have been happier for it. That’s the conclusion suggested by two sociologists, Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker, in their recent book, “Premarital Sex in America.” Their research, which looks at sexual behavior among contemporary young adults, finds a significant correlation between sexual restraint and emotional well-being, between monogamy and happiness — and between promiscuity and depression.

Fixed that for you. Intentions matter, whether you like it or not.

Why?

To me, it is either sound policy or not sound policy. Why do motives matter? You keep saying they do, but not why they do.

All I care about are results (and, also, whether the policy is Constitutional, though you've got to be a blind, inbred idiot to run afoul of the Establishment Clause).

BTW, my personal philosophy to not really question people's motives, for the most part, comes from Joe Biden's autobiography. He talked in there about how that was a guiding principle of his, and how much it helped him out - it clears away all the noise and lets you argue about what matters. It made so much sense to me.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

I'd also think that sex education in schools (you know, the stuff that the religious right whines about) is also lowering the trend.

Classes are now giving teens those mechanical babies to take home for a few nights. Those sleepless nights are making a pretty strong impression.

 

[Azrael]

Nobody's having less "sex." They're having less vaginal sex. More oral, more anal. I'm sure Ross Douthat is too polite to mention it. Otherwise, why the epidemic of teen STDs? Abstinence instruction does nothing but leave American kids ignorant about sex and infection and condoms.

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/health_med_fit/article_96d0ee57-e3dc-59d7-a5ec-e5cbc5b71ffc.html


One in four teenage girls in the U.S. has an STD, according to the Centers for Disease Control. In Wisconsin, the rate of four of the most commonly reported STDs among teens jumped 53 percent between 1997 and 2007. Females and minorities, especially African-Americans, have been hit hard. And these are numbers that have been reported; actual cases may be much higher. But it remains a hidden epidemic, not just because many STDs have no symptoms, but because of the stigma and politics that complicate efforts to fight them.


http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/50917596-78/utah-health-sex-teens.html.csp

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/08/teen-std-rates-higher-now_n_384291.html

 

[Bob Cook]

George Michael sez: sex is best when it's one-on-one.

 

[Double J]

George Michael sez: sex is best when it's one-on-one.

I remember how he tried to defuse that controversy by making a number of statements about monogamy, which of course is something he's never actually practised even to this day.

 

[outofplace]

Thought about posting this on the Huckabee thread, but thought that it wasn't quite aligned enough.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/opinion/07douthat.html?_r=1&hp

Douthat cites some research that shows that young Americans are waiting longer to have sex, linking it (I think) to the abstinence movement. Much like Huckabee, it is an attempt by a social conservative to give a policy foundation to a movement we accurately see as pushing religion on us. An interesting read, if nothing else, and I wouldn't mind reading the book he cites to.

Yes, in 1950 as in 2011, most people didn’t go virgins to their marriage beds. But earlier generations of Americans waited longer to have sex, took fewer sexual partners across their lifetimes, and were more likely to see sleeping together as a way station on the road to wedlock.

And they may have been happier for it. That’s the conclusion suggested by two sociologists, Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker, in their recent book, “Premarital Sex in America.” Their research, which looks at sexual behavior among contemporary young adults, finds a significant correlation between sexual restraint and emotional well-being, between monogamy and happiness — and between promiscuity and depression.

Fixed that for you. Intentions matter, whether you like it or not.

Why?

To me, it is either sound policy or not sound policy. Why do motives matter? You keep saying they do, but not why they do.

All I care about are results (and, also, whether the policy is Constitutional, though you've got to be a blind, inbred idiot to run afoul of the Establishment Clause).

BTW, my personal philosophy to not really question people's motives, for the most part, comes from Joe Biden's autobiography. He talked in there about how that was a guiding principle of his, and how much it helped him out - it clears away all the noise and lets you argue about what matters. It made so much sense to me.

First of all, when one person pushes their religious-based morality on others, it damn sure matters in this country. You aren't part of a religious minority, are you? If you were, perhaps you would have a better understanding of that problem.

Secondly, pushing mongamy is one thing. Pushing marriage before sex is another. Pushing abstinence is another. The problem with pushing abstinence is that it is so often done at the expense of proper sex education, which is flat-out stupid.

 

[Dick Whitman]

First of all, when one person pushes their religious-based morality on others, it damn sure matters in this country. You aren't part of a religious minority, are you? If you were, perhaps you would have a better understanding of that problem.

So, motivations are so tough to ferret out that, to me, it isn't worth the energy. It's a fool's errand. If Mike Huckabee says that he wants marriage because marriage is good for children, and here's the social science to support it, why should I care if that's pretext? How does it alter the equation at all? I will take him at his word and move on. That's the only efficient way to meet the stance.

If that policy idea is set on a flimsy foundation - say, religion - then that'll come out in the wash. The policy will be flawed, and that will be a winnable argument on the merits.

People anchor a lot of their morality in religion. For example: "Thou shalt not kill." Some people want an objective source. But as long as they take the next step, which is explaining why their moral/value works in the real world, then I have no problem with it.

Secondly, pushing mongamy is one thing. Pushing marriage before sex is another. Pushing abstinence is another. The problem with pushing abstinence is that it is so often done at the expense of proper sex education, which is flat-out stupid.

Yeah, see, this is a policy argument.

 

[outofplace]

First of all, when one person pushes their religious-based morality on others, it damn sure matters in this country. You aren't part of a religious minority, are you? If you were, perhaps you would have a better understanding of that problem.

So, motivations are so tough to ferret out that, to me, it isn't worth the energy. It's a fool's errand. If Mike Huckabee says that he wants marriage because marriage is good for children, and here's the social science to support it, why should I care if that's pretext? How does it alter the equation at all? I will take him at his word and move on. That's the only efficient way to meet the stance.

If that policy idea is set on a flimsy foundation - say, religion - then that'll come out in the wash. The policy will be flawed, and that will be a winnable argument on the merits.

People anchor a lot of their morality in religion. For example: "Thou shalt not kill." Some people want an objective source. But as long as they take the next step, which is explaining why their moral/value works in the real world, then I have no problem with it.

Secondly, pushing mongamy is one thing. Pushing marriage before sex is another. Pushing abstinence is another. The problem with pushing abstinence is that it is so often done at the expense of proper sex education, which is flat-out stupid.

Yeah, see, this is a policy argument.

Actually, plenty of people can figure out that killing is bad without G-d telling them so, so please stop leaning on that argument. It is one of the dumber ones used by the crowd that thinks it is okay for religion to guide government.

Huckabee's motivations aren't hard to ferret out at all. Neither are those of most of the people pushing abstinence while fighting against proper sex education.

 

[Dick Whitman]

First of all, when one person pushes their religious-based morality on others, it damn sure matters in this country. You aren't part of a religious minority, are you? If you were, perhaps you would have a better understanding of that problem.

So, motivations are so tough to ferret out that, to me, it isn't worth the energy. It's a fool's errand. If Mike Huckabee says that he wants marriage because marriage is good for children, and here's the social science to support it, why should I care if that's pretext? How does it alter the equation at all? I will take him at his word and move on. That's the only efficient way to meet the stance.

If that policy idea is set on a flimsy foundation - say, religion - then that'll come out in the wash. The policy will be flawed, and that will be a winnable argument on the merits.

People anchor a lot of their morality in religion. For example: "Thou shalt not kill." Some people want an objective source. But as long as they take the next step, which is explaining why their moral/value works in the real world, then I have no problem with it.

Secondly, pushing mongamy is one thing. Pushing marriage before sex is another. Pushing abstinence is another. The problem with pushing abstinence is that it is so often done at the expense of proper sex education, which is flat-out stupid.

Yeah, see, this is a policy argument.

Actually, plenty of people can figure out that killing is bad without G-d telling them so, so please stop leaning on that argument. It is one of the dumber ones used by the crowd that thinks it is okay for religion to guide government.

Huckabee's motivations aren't hard to ferret out at all. Neither are those of most of the people pushing abstinence while fighting against proper sex education.

I don't think it's OK for religion to guide government. "God says so" is not a policy basis. "Single mothers do not collect child support and therefore drain public dollars" is a policy argument. The fact that the two sources are in concurrence is utterly meaningless to the larger question of whether it is good policy or bad policy.

 

[Alma]

Nobody's having less "sex." They're having less vaginal sex. More oral, more anal. I'm sure Ross Douthat is too polite to mention it. Otherwise, why the epidemic of teen STDs? Abstinence instruction does nothing but leave American kids ignorant about sex and infection and condoms.

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/health_med_fit/article_96d0ee57-e3dc-59d7-a5ec-e5cbc5b71ffc.html


One in four teenage girls in the U.S. has an STD, according to the Centers for Disease Control. In Wisconsin, the rate of four of the most commonly reported STDs among teens jumped 53 percent between 1997 and 2007. Females and minorities, especially African-Americans, have been hit hard. And these are numbers that have been reported; actual cases may be much higher. But it remains a hidden epidemic, not just because many STDs have no symptoms, but because of the stigma and politics that complicate efforts to fight them.


http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/50917596-78/utah-health-sex-teens.html.csp

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/08/teen-std-rates-higher-now_n_384291.html

You think abstinence education leads to a uptick in oral and anal sex? That would require proving that abstinence education primarily promotes abstinence to prevent pregnancy. Which, in my experience, it does not.

I'd argue that culture - TV, magazines, the Internet, movies - has overwhelmed <i>any</i> gains that <i>any</i> form of education could make on kids having unprotected sex in, um, <i>any</i> orifice with <i>any</i> person. A small handful of network head and TV/Movie/Reality Shows writers have decided that kids will have sex no matter what, that hormones rule, and the depicting it in as many ways as possible is the best way of being truthful.

What if your child told you they were going to have sex and you said no. But then your child said "but you let me watch 12 shows where kids have sex all the time!" What would be a parent's answer to that?

 

[I Should Coco]

That NY Times article is based on a wire service story our shop ran last week. When they talk about 28 percent of young adults being "virgins," I believe that meant they have refrained from ALL sexual activity.

I also found this bit from the NYT article interesting:

Their research, which looks at sexual behavior among contemporary young adults, finds a significant correlation between sexual restraint and emotional well-being, between monogamy and happiness — and between promiscuity and depression.

This correlation is much stronger for women than for men. Female emotional well-being seems to be tightly bound to sexual stability — which may help explain why overall female happiness has actually drifted downward since the sexual revolution.

Maybe what's causing the decline in happiness is not more or less sex, but a definite decline in intimacy (in the larger sense).

 

[Azrael]

I never said abstinence led to an uptick in anything.

But pregnancy prevention is certainly not the operative concept among white middle-class suburbanites. It's some PromiseKeepers notion regarding the preservation of virginity.

Are cultural forces at work? Of course they are.

What does the teaching of "abstinence" hand teenagers to deal with those cultural forces? Nothing.

The teaching of "abstinence" in most cases seems to mean "no sex education at all."

Teach sex ed. Teach abstinence and moderation. Teach hygiene and infection prevention.

But teach them something.

 

[Alma]

First of all, when one person pushes their religious-based morality on others, it damn sure matters in this country. You aren't part of a religious minority, are you? If you were, perhaps you would have a better understanding of that problem.

So, motivations are so tough to ferret out that, to me, it isn't worth the energy. It's a fool's errand. If Mike Huckabee says that he wants marriage because marriage is good for children, and here's the social science to support it, why should I care if that's pretext? How does it alter the equation at all? I will take him at his word and move on. That's the only efficient way to meet the stance.

If that policy idea is set on a flimsy foundation - say, religion - then that'll come out in the wash. The policy will be flawed, and that will be a winnable argument on the merits.

People anchor a lot of their morality in religion. For example: "Thou shalt not kill." Some people want an objective source. But as long as they take the next step, which is explaining why their moral/value works in the real world, then I have no problem with it.

Secondly, pushing mongamy is one thing. Pushing marriage before sex is another. Pushing abstinence is another. The problem with pushing abstinence is that it is so often done at the expense of proper sex education, which is flat-out stupid.

Yeah, see, this is a policy argument.

Actually, plenty of people can figure out that killing is bad without G-d telling them so, so please stop leaning on that argument. It is one of the dumber ones used by the crowd that thinks it is okay for religion to guide government.

Huckabee's motivations aren't hard to ferret out at all. Neither are those of most of the people pushing abstinence while fighting against proper sex education.

I don't think it's OK for religion to guide government. "God says so" is not a policy basis. "Single mothers do not collect child support and therefore drain public dollars" is a policy argument. The fact that the two sources are in concurrence is utterly meaningless to the larger question of whether it is good policy or bad policy.

God Says So is no better or worse a reason than "my Mom always believed" or "I learned at my first political job."

I mean, what authority, really, exists to say what's good and what's bad? So (in your example) single mothers drain theoretically public dollars. Big deal. So what? You think that's too bad, and this guy over here thinks it's great. He'd like to see more single mothers in fact, more public dollars, more degradation of government services. You think he's a bad guy. He thinks you're a bad guy. Who's right? Why? Are you going to have a "good person" standoff? A fistfight? Who gets to decide the terms of "good?" And how come they get to decide those terms and not somebody else? And why isn't "bad" actually "good?"

You can do this all day. In fact, TV shows makes millions off of recycling those very questions, again and again, convincing the masses relativism is an absolute truth.

If that seems off course for this discussion, I don't think it is. We're talking, essentially, about why it's better to have fewer sexual partners, and your argument is based in, what? Utilitarianism? Why's that better than feeling good? Sex feels good in the moment. Can that great feeling outweigh any public good that could be gained by denying the pleasure?

I know millions of drug addicts make that choice every day. I want the feeling despite the greater cost of what happens because of it. Sex isn't all that different. We presume, somewhat hilariously, that, on the one hand, kids can't control the impulse to screw. They have to do that, and denying it would be like, well, denying their very existence. <i>But</i>, in the same breath, we presume they'll have reasonable desires. In other words, they'll want to have sex, they need to have sex, but possess an equal desire to have "safely," with condoms and birth control and HPV shots and whatever. Again - I find it hilarious that reason can't blunt the initial desire but somehow acts a "muse in the moment," as if "well, gee, Lydia, I've never seen breasts before and I'm feeling things I never have, but I also know, in this moment of fear and longing and primordial urge, I must blunt that urge ever so slightly to slip on this rubber thing I've never put on before so as to fit the ideal of how real teen sex is done." By the grace of whatever God you do or don't believe, this actually occurs sometimes. But to think we could make it a systemic groupthink is a shoulder-shuddering revelation into what we really think about people...if we really thought about it.

 

[Mark McGwire]

"Motives don't matter" and "I just want results" are each independently one stiff breeze from "the ends justify the means."

 

[Alma]

I never said abstinence led to an uptick in anything.

But pregnancy prevention is certainly not the operative concept among white middle-class suburbanites. It's some PromiseKeepers notion regarding the preservation of virginity.

Are cultural forces at work? Of course they are.

What does the teaching of "abstinence" hand teenagers to deal with those cultural forces? Nothing.

The teaching of "abstinence" in most cases seems to mean "no sex education at all."

Teach sex ed. Teach abstinence and moderation. Teach hygiene and infection prevention.

But teach them something.

That notion of virginity, however quaint and poorly-worded as it may, directly refutes the cultural forces at work. Culture says "do this" and the notion says "culture is wrong." It may be a narrative argument at best - and people don't like narratives today, they like numbers, because at the root of those numbers, somewhere, is money - but it is an argument.

Contraceptive sex education simply says - well, culture is pretty much right, but, once you get in the thick of your sexual heat, remember to slip one of these on. Or perhaps not take it in your mouth.

It's applying the Band-Aid of reason to matter of desire. It's what we've been doing for more than a century on all matters of issues. It doesn't ****ing work.

 

[Dick Whitman]

"Motives don't matter" and "I just want results" are each independently one stiff breeze from "the ends justify the means."

When I say I only care about the results, I don't just mean that the ends always justify the means. For example, forced sterilization of poor people would probably end a lot of welfare. But the cost has to factor in, not just the result. The social cost of such a policy, paid in people's civil rights, make it bad policy.

I just don't care about Mike Huckabee's motives. I don't. Bad policy will reveal itself. The motive doesn't matter.

P.S. How do you measure "civil rights"? I don't know. I completely acknowledge that I tend to venture into "assume a can opener" territory.

 

[Azrael]

I never said abstinence led to an uptick in anything.

But pregnancy prevention is certainly not the operative concept among white middle-class suburbanites. It's some PromiseKeepers notion regarding the preservation of virginity.

Are cultural forces at work? Of course they are.

What does the teaching of "abstinence" hand teenagers to deal with those cultural forces? Nothing.

The teaching of "abstinence" in most cases seems to mean "no sex education at all."

Teach sex ed. Teach abstinence and moderation. Teach hygiene and infection prevention.

But teach them something.

That notion of virginity, however quaint and poorly-worded as it may, directly refutes the cultural forces at work. Culture says "do this" and the notion says "culture is wrong." It may be a narrative argument at best - and people don't like narratives today, they like numbers, because at the root of those numbers, somewhere, is money - but it is an argument.

Contraceptive sex education simply says - well, culture is pretty much right, but, once you get in the thick of your sexual heat, remember to slip one of these on. Or perhaps not take it in your mouth.

It's applying the Band-Aid of reason to matter of desire. It's what we've been doing for more than a century on all matters of issues. It doesn't ****ing work.

I'm not sure why someone so smart thinks the teaching of morality and the teaching of practical hygiene are mutually exclusive.

And people were ****ing just as diligently and randomly 100 years ago. And 500 and 1500 and all the way back into the dark.

 

[Dick Whitman]

First of all, when one person pushes their religious-based morality on others, it damn sure matters in this country. You aren't part of a religious minority, are you? If you were, perhaps you would have a better understanding of that problem.

So, motivations are so tough to ferret out that, to me, it isn't worth the energy. It's a fool's errand. If Mike Huckabee says that he wants marriage because marriage is good for children, and here's the social science to support it, why should I care if that's pretext? How does it alter the equation at all? I will take him at his word and move on. That's the only efficient way to meet the stance.

If that policy idea is set on a flimsy foundation - say, religion - then that'll come out in the wash. The policy will be flawed, and that will be a winnable argument on the merits.

People anchor a lot of their morality in religion. For example: "Thou shalt not kill." Some people want an objective source. But as long as they take the next step, which is explaining why their moral/value works in the real world, then I have no problem with it.

Secondly, pushing mongamy is one thing. Pushing marriage before sex is another. Pushing abstinence is another. The problem with pushing abstinence is that it is so often done at the expense of proper sex education, which is flat-out stupid.

Yeah, see, this is a policy argument.

Actually, plenty of people can figure out that killing is bad without G-d telling them so, so please stop leaning on that argument. It is one of the dumber ones used by the crowd that thinks it is okay for religion to guide government.

Huckabee's motivations aren't hard to ferret out at all. Neither are those of most of the people pushing abstinence while fighting against proper sex education.

I don't think it's OK for religion to guide government. "God says so" is not a policy basis. "Single mothers do not collect child support and therefore drain public dollars" is a policy argument. The fact that the two sources are in concurrence is utterly meaningless to the larger question of whether it is good policy or bad policy.

God Says So is no better or worse a reason than "my Mom always believed" or "I learned at my first political job."

I mean, what authority, really, exists to say what's good and what's bad? So (in your example) single mothers drain theoretically public dollars. Big deal. So what? You think that's too bad, and this guy over here thinks it's great. He'd like to see more single mothers in fact, more public dollars, more degradation of government services. You think he's a bad guy. He thinks you're a bad guy. Who's right? Why? Are you going to have a "good person" standoff? A fistfight? Who gets to decide the terms of "good?" And how come they get to decide those terms and not somebody else? And why isn't "bad" actually "good?"

You can do this all day. In fact, TV shows makes millions off of recycling those very questions, again and again, convincing the masses relativism is an absolute truth.

If that seems off course for this discussion, I don't think it is. We're talking, essentially, about why it's better to have fewer sexual partners, and your argument is based in, what? Utilitarianism?

You can call it that. Social costs vs. social benefits.

And I recognize the flaws of pure utilitarianism. (Extreme Example: Justifying a wrongful execution.)