- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Liberal Women Are Lustier

So observes University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus in his great and deeply unsettling new book Cheap Sex [1], which is about changing practices of mating and marriage. He doesn’t really phrase it like that, but he does point out sociological data showing that “more politically liberal young-adult women report wanting more sex than they have been having.” Regnerus says the percentage of women who said they would prefer to have more sex is as follows:

Why is this? Regnerus writes:

[P]olitical identity today likely captures embeddedness in distinctive worldviews, sets of meanings, and ideas about the self and relationships. With regard to sex and sexuality in America, being politically liberal tends to mean valuing sexual expression as a good-in-itself, not only as a means to an end or contingent on the context (such as being in a relationship or being married). Talk of “sexual health” is also more common among them and typically takes acts of sexual expression for granted. In this perspective, it is a moral good to express one’s sexuality in actions of one’s own free choosing. Pleasure is reached for and should be. In keeping with this, liberal women are more than twice as likely as conservative women to report past-week and past-day masturbation.

More (I photographed this passage from the book):

That was Regnerus’s hypothesis. So,  he crunched the numbers to account for religious service attendance, importance of religion, “and a unique measure of having become less religious in the past decade” to see if the hypothesis could be grounded in data. What he found was that among young adult women, it’s not really political liberalism that correlates with wanting more sex (no matter how much one is having), but rather one’s loss of religious belief. 

Regnerus continues:

In a world increasingly bereft of transcendence, sexual expression is emerging as an intrinsic value. Sex is the new opium of the masses, [social psychologists Roy] Baumeister and [Kathleen] Vohs claim, a temporary heart in a heartless world. Unfortunately, something so immanent as sex will not — and cannot — function in the manner in which religion can, has, and does. (To be sure, some replace it with an appreciation and devotion to nature.) Sex does not explain the world. It is not a master narrative. It has little to offer by way of convincing theodicy But in a world increasingly missing transcendence, longing for sexual expression makes sense. It should not surprised us, however, that those who (unconsciously) demand sex function like religion will come up short. Maybe that is why very liberal women are also twice as likely to report being depressed or currently in psychotherapy than very conservative women.

You’ll have to buy Cheap Sex to read the whole thing [1], but I strongly recommend it.

147 Comments (Open | Close)

147 Comments To "Liberal Women Are Lustier"

#1 Comment By Rob G On September 20, 2017 @ 7:11 am

~~This “fear” of female sexuality is straw man.~~

Yes, it’s a bogus feminist explanation for why men prefer not to be in relationships with known serially monogamous (i.e., promiscuous) women. If there’s any fear present on men’s part, it’s fear that such a woman can’t be trusted.

And yes, the fact that this same idea doesn’t work the other way does reflect a double standard. But the way to fix that is not to lower the bar for women, as feminism does, but to raise it for men. That “men are dogs” is not in any way ameliorated by proposing that all women should present as bitches in heat.

#2 Comment By Rick67 On September 20, 2017 @ 8:11 am

… it’s not really political liberalism that correlates with wanting more sex (no matter how much one is having), but rather one’s loss of religious belief.

You might be tired of me bringing this up, that I am convinced a chief goal of the sexual revolution (of which same sex, transgender, and so on, are the “leading edge” thereof) is to marginalize and eradicate traditional religion, Christianity in particular. However it’s not clear which causes what in the quote above. Does loss of religion lead to obsession with sex or does lots of cheap sex help provoke loss of religion? Might be both.

This is why well meaning Christians need to be very very careful when they argue that Christianity needs to make some degrees of accommodation with the revolution of sexual autonomy. They might think they are advancing God’s will for humanity. (And we can name church leaders who say that explicitly.) If they are mistaken… they are helping the spirit of the age infiltrate and (attempt to) defeat the “intrusion of heaven” (one way I describe the church) from within.

#3 Comment By Northern Observer On September 20, 2017 @ 8:45 am

To paraphrase a political axiom of our time, it’s the unfulfilment stupid.
There is a hole in the progressive soul and no amount of “O” can fill it, but because they refuse to see, the Christian way to humanity, they double down on lust and perversion as a diversion from the nothingness inside their body which will age and die as it should but since their body is the vehicle for the “O” the flail against aging like a sad pathetic child and in truth their heresy is one of eternal infantilism.

May a generation come to wash away the shabby untruths of social liberals. May a generation come to laugh at Freud, Marx and their bastard child Marcus.

#4 Comment By Mario Diana On September 20, 2017 @ 9:11 am

When I see photographs of some of these women who show up to various left-wing protests—women who I assume would self-identify as “very liberal”—I can completely believe they would like to have more sex than they are actually managing to have. Have a look at some of them!

#5 Comment By Richard On September 20, 2017 @ 9:46 am

What was Quentin Crisp’s observation? “Sex is the last refuge of the miserable.”

#6 Comment By Wygrif On September 20, 2017 @ 10:37 am

Regnerus decries sex as “having little in the way of convincing theodicy.” If there’s a bumper sticker for “I am not capable of imagining the world from these people’s perspective” this is it. Theodicy is an almost exclusively Abrahamic pursuit because it falls out of the nature of their God. If you believe in lots of squabbling gods, the problem is just not that interesting-evil exists because some of the gods are enormous jerks. From a secular perspective, it’s just as boring a question. Evil exists because we live in a universe that has limited resources and is deeply indifferent to human life. It only becomes an interesting or relevant question if your commitments prevent you from taking any of the obvious answers.

#7 Comment By Rob G On September 20, 2017 @ 10:49 am

“Did he do any sort of regression analysis?”

I haven’t seen the book yet, but it may be in there. The recent sociological study of the white working class by Justin Gest, The New Minority (also published by OUP) includes the methods and the regression tables in the appendices. Not sure if that’s s.o.p. for the publisher re: their sociological works.

#8 Comment By VikingLS On September 20, 2017 @ 10:57 am

People tend not to believe data that contradicts their narratives or what seems to be common sense. It doesn’t matter what the subject is. At that point we get anecdotes.

#9 Comment By TR On September 20, 2017 @ 11:04 am

“By that standard, no social science research is believable.” But it’s well known that “lying” (or giving the culturally approved response) is always a problem.

More important to me, is that in 35 years in Academia I never saw a piece of social science/ behavioral research that could not be torn apart on methodological grounds by another specialist. Which is one reason I never cite statistics.

#10 Comment By EarlyBird On September 20, 2017 @ 11:44 am

I was born after he Fall (i.e., in 1965) so can’t imagine how amazing it must have been for men of my father’s generation to “discover” that suddenly women were willing and eager to be promiscuous, not just for the pleasure of it, but to promote a political and human good. Oh how liberating!

#11 Comment By mrscracker On September 20, 2017 @ 12:07 pm

This comment may not be overly intelligent – being written under the influence of cold medication- but wouldn’t marital status make a difference?
How would a single, conservative woman who follows traditional moral teachings even answer this?

#12 Comment By Olga On September 20, 2017 @ 12:15 pm

I was in Evangelical and Orthodox Christian circles. The only appropriate outlet for sex was during marriage. Since 94% of Americans have sex at least once before marriage, many of these women were lying about their sexual desires and habits.

I have been involved in the BDSM and swinger scenes. As shocking as it may be, in both scenes, you can’t just walk up to someone and ask for sex. You have to have conversations and develop a connection. It could take months or years to develop a relationship that leads to sex. People are much more specific about likes and dislikes. In the BDSM community, there are many people that identify as asexual or stone. So they are not doing anything that would look like sex to the typical person.

Who enjoys sex more? Anyway, conservative or liberal, who finds a good partner and they both enjoy the same kinds of sex and want the same thing out of the relationship, can have amazing sex.

#13 Comment By anastasia On September 20, 2017 @ 1:53 pm

To me the key word in “wanting more sex” is “more.” According to these statistics, progressive want “more” sex than they’re getting, and conservative women are quite happy with what they have. In my experience, limited as it is, progressives in general talk a great line about sex, but when it comes right down to it they’re lousy at it. Sex without mystery, without sacramentality, is basically “what can you do for me to make my body feel good?” No wonder progressive women want more sex! Whatever it is they’re getting now is hardly worth the trouble. I have a suspicion (based on lots of experience) that conservative women do not express a greater need for “more” sex because they’re getting plenty of the good kind right now. Are they less “lusty” than progressive women? Give me a break! To argue that good religious girls want less sex is to throw us back into the Victorian era, when married women who got turned on by their husbands and desired frequent sex were considered whores. Please. No more of than nonsense.

#14 Comment By Ellen Kennon On September 20, 2017 @ 2:11 pm

Talk about hogwash!

#15 Comment By Jeff Clothier On September 20, 2017 @ 2:46 pm

If religion were so.fulfilling, why are most people leaving it in droves?

There is more to life than waiting to be dead.

“Transcendant” in this context = “imaginary.”

It might also have something to do with liberal women being less repressed by conservative males who can’t or won’t get it up.

#16 Comment By Mike Findlay On September 20, 2017 @ 2:48 pm

Maybe I’m missing something but shouldn’t the conclusion from the data be that conservative women are more sexually satisfied than liberal women?

#17 Comment By mrscracker On September 20, 2017 @ 3:30 pm

Mike Findlay,
That’s very observant I think.

#18 Comment By Ken Zaretzke On September 20, 2017 @ 3:54 pm

“I see no control for age in the analysis. It might as well be older women are less lustful than younger ones…”

Biologically, women’s sexual desire peaks in their late 20s through their early 30s. The mythology of the randy housewife has a scientific basis.

#19 Comment By BadReligion On September 20, 2017 @ 9:41 pm

“An anecdote that isn’t common in real life but it is amplified by pop culture. The very same one that has only one narrative on sexuality: everything is permissible.”

Oh really? I run into it, without looking for it, all the time. It sure seems like one of the many factors leading to the secularization constantly bemoaned here.

“The “best” contraceptives still fail. 14 000 UK women went for an abortion despite using the pill or long acting contraceptive.”

I’m not sure why you used scare quotes, but that’s beside the point. Pill failures primarily occur due to user error, i.e. forgetting to take them on the proper schedule. LARCs (IUDs and implants) have no such possibility. Your own BBC link mentions this user error quite explicitly, and also mentions doctors not offering LARCs as often as they should.

Thus, my conclusion is perfectly valid: [2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

The abortion rate in the US has been falling since the 1980s, and yet the total fertility rate (births per woman) has not increased.

As for the abortion rates in those states, you do realize that, thanks to restrictions on abortion access, women in the US will go to great lengths to access abortion care, both literally in terms of distance, and more figuratively in terms of housing, finances, child care, and all the other factors that they have to deal with, right?

Notice how the Netherlands, with its “Long Live Love” sex-ed program that begins at 13, has rock-bottom rates of abortion, teen pregnancy, unplanned pregnancy in general, and STDs/STIs. This is a place where abortion providers are easy to access, and free to the user, and it’s common to begin having sex in one’s teens, under one’s parents’ own roof, with their knowledge and permission.

“This “fear” of female sexuality is straw man.”

Oh really? Then explain why for centuries conservatives have tried so very hard to ensure that women remain ignorant about their bodies, their sexuality in general, and their capacity for pleasure. Explain Anthony Comstock, and all his successors. Explain why contraceptives had to be sold under euphemisms like “womb veils.” Explain why the Mary Tyler Moore show was so groundbreaking in its depiction of an unmarried adult woman who was sexually active. There’s so much more.

“The ‘sexual incompatibility’ alluded here is a fiction. Couples grow together. Having more sex partners in the past increases sexual incompatibility as more comparisons are made (i.e. increased objectification).”

Ideally couples grow together, but plenty of times they grow apart, and that’s only when the infidelity is discovered! Wildly different sex drives (initially or over time), incompatible levels of kink, basic physiology, and the like are not easily overcome. As for making more comparisons, yes, people can find out what they really want.

This blog entry, and the ensuing comments, remind me once again of that college essay theme that my English teacher advised us not to write, since it’s so common: “The attractive and popular people are all vapid and shallow. People like me are getting more out of life because we think about and appreciate things more deeply, fully, and transcendently, and we’ll be vindicated in the end, or even sooner.”

It was hackneyed and incorrect then, and it’s the same way now.

#20 Comment By Craig On September 20, 2017 @ 9:47 pm

That religion satisfies a need we have for transcendence is a novel idea for me, not something I remember from the religious instruction of my youth. I understand, of the course, that the idea that something of yourself might survive beyond death would be comforting to most people. But most of us don’t really come to terms with our own mortality until fairly late in life. We act and pretend as if we are going to live forever, long past the time that is wise.

And, I suppose, I get that it might be easier to adhere to religious restrictions on behavior if you thought it made you part of a bigger, grander plan, something that sits outside of our uncertain, precarious material existence. Or that there is someone, somewhere, who has a plan for your life, that your life has some purpose despite the finite nature of it. Still, to suggest that pleasure or feelings from sex might be a short term substitute for a sense or feeling of transcendence suggests that transcendence is something more intense and emotional that the primarily intellectual comforts that I mentioned so far. So maybe I just don’t get what is meant by the term, maybe because I’ve never experienced something that seemed beyond objective reality.

While doing some backround reading on the subject, I found one article which which argued that you need neither religion or drugs to “transcend the self and connect to something bigger”. I won’t bother linking to the article, but it did reference something kind of interesting:

“The polling company Gallup has, since the 1960s, measured the frequency of mystical experiences in the United States. In 1960, only 20 per cent of the population said they’d had one or more. Now, it’s around 50 per cent. In a survey I did in 2016, 84 per cent of respondents said they’d had an experience where they went beyond their ordinary self, and felt connected to something greater than them.”

Clearly, I am a slacker in terms of having my own mystical experiences. But isn’t it funny that even as religion fades away as a force in Western life, people report having more, rather than fewer, transcendental experiences?

#21 Comment By AD On September 20, 2017 @ 10:23 pm

Instead of assuming liberal women seek transcendent experience through sex, a simpler explanation would be that they simply don’t carry guilt when seeking sexual pleasure and want more because it feel really good! There just are fewer conditions they have to satisfy to permit themselves sexual pleasure.

#22 Comment By Gretchen On September 21, 2017 @ 12:02 am

What’s missing from this report is why the conservative women don’t want more sex. Is it because they have such awesome, fulfilled sex lives that more would be superfluous? Or is it because they don’t really like or enjoy sex, so more would be more of something they don’t want? It’s not clear. Libby Anne at Patheos has written quite a bit about growing up in purity culture and then navigating marriage. Here’s one take: [6] The summary: she suppressed every sexual thought and feeling the first 20 years of her life, because sex has no place in an unmarried woman’s life. This was all supposed to do a 180 when she married, and her sexuality would suddenly bloom. Didn’t happen. Girls in purity culture are told that the greatest gift they can give their husbands is their virginity, and their wedding night will be the greatest night of their life when this great gift is given. Then you have two awkward, clueless kids with no sexual experience and high expectations, and the result is pain and disappointment. Women can’t go from sexless to va-va-voom overnight, and the expectation leads to disappointment and dysfunction.
Another data point is the figure in the above article that liberal women masturbate much more than conservative women. Most women have trouble reaching orgasm during intercourse. Women who masturbate know how to reach orgasm, and they are more able to figure out how to reach orgasm during intercourse, since they know what it feels like. Therefore they enjoy intercourse more than women who can’t achieve orgasm. In fact, if one consults a professional about the problem of being unable to achieve orgasm, the first article of advice is to masturbate to learn what works. Since liberal women are more likely to know how to achieve orgasm, they are more likely to find intercourse fulfilling, and want more. In contrast to the conservative women who find that it falls disappointingly short of the rapture they were promised.
And any guy who is thinking “Ick, I don’t want to think about female orgasm”, I’m guessing your wife is in the “thanks, I’ll be fine not having sex” group.

#23 Comment By Chris Cosmos On September 21, 2017 @ 12:41 am

Interesting. Of course about the therapy part–conservatives in general believe that to receive therapy is (still) shameful so that part is a wash. Maybe, sex is appreicated by “liberal” (whatever that means) women who no longer believe that the puritan way of life works for them. Maybe pleasure is a good in itself and thus these women would like to have more of it. Many studies have shown that frequent sex is healthier because it promotes joy oxytocin and other hormones that reduce stress. But conservatives tend to believe life should consist of restraint and repression for pie in the sky bye and bye. The logic is simple, pleasure today means no eternal life with God so it’s logical to forgo pleasure. I too believe in restraint to balance pleasure but too much of one or the other I believe is harmful.

#24 Comment By John_M On September 21, 2017 @ 12:49 am

Could it be something as simple as having no or fewer children, and consequentially having more energy and time for such activities?

#25 Comment By TA On September 21, 2017 @ 7:54 am

@MH

Humans are dimorphic, but with high levels of overlap. For example, men are taller than women on average, but lots of women are taller than lots of men.

IIRC, in about 25% of marriages the wife has a higher libido than the husband. The narrative that Rod was advancing is very destructive to people in that situation since it makes both the man and the women I that situation believe there is something deeply wrong with them.

(p.s. The system keeps eating my comments. This is my 4th? attempt to post here.)

#26 Comment By MH – Secular Misanthropist On September 21, 2017 @ 9:02 am

@TA, no argument from me about dimorphism with overlap. I agree that Rod overstated the situation, but on average men do seem to have higher sex drive than women.

This honestly makes sense to me because females are guaranteed to be the parent of the offspring they birth. Males with some extra motivation increased their probability of successful reproduction. The humans alive today are the result those ancestral conditions.

The reason I pointed this out is that humans are not as rational as we would like to believe. We often believe reason can override our nature, only to learn hard lessons about our inherited nature.

tl;dr I think evolutionary psychology has some merit.

#27 Comment By TA On September 21, 2017 @ 9:16 am

@Gretchen

Building on your comment, there is evidence that increased masturbation in women is causally linked with increased libido. (i.e. female masturbation isn’t a substitute for partnered sex, it drives increased desire for partnered sex)

Regerus is implying that the increased levels of masturbation in liberal women is a sign of their increased desire for sex.

More likely than fancy metaphysical arguments about transcendence, this is likely as simple as: liberal women are culturally and morally more open to masturbation -> liberal women masturbate more -> masturbation increases desire for partnered sex -> liberal women have a higher desire for partnered sex than conservative women.

(NB: With the all-too-often missed caveat that these are average behaviors, plenty of conservative women will have higher libidos than plenty of liberal women.)

#28 Comment By shoeboogie On September 21, 2017 @ 11:35 am

It’s a classic joke.

Women’s number one sexual problem: Inability to reach orgasm.

Men’s number one sexual problem: Inability to care about a woman’s inability to reach orgasm

#29 Comment By Susan On September 21, 2017 @ 3:23 pm

I think the reason is this: this scale probably maps nicely onto who is having the most sex. Consider this generalization:

Very conservative women: happily married
Conservative women: married
Moderate women: living together (they have less sex than married people)
Liberal women: boyfriend
Very liberal women: single

It’s a scale of having the most sex to having the least, if you ask me. Conservative women don’t like sex less, they’re just having more of it.

#30 Comment By Ed On September 21, 2017 @ 6:53 pm

If they want more sex, they aren’t getting the sex they want. Maybe conservative and very conservative women are satisfied and very satisfied.

More seriously perhaps, don’t fall into the trap Rush Limbaugh did with Sandra Fluke. Fluke wasn’t a “slut” who wanted sex. She was an ideologue who wanted to make a political point.

#31 Comment By Outsider On September 22, 2017 @ 2:33 am

***Oh really? I run into it, without looking for it, all the time. It sure seems like one of the many factors leading to the secularization constantly bemoaned here.***
Sure. I’m the King of France. Or you’re an outlier. That’s the problem with anecdotes in this case.
***I’m not sure why you used scare quotes, but that’s beside the point. Pill failures primarily occur due to user error, i.e. forgetting to take them on the proper schedule. LARCs (IUDs and implants) have no such possibility. Your own BBC link mentions this user error quite explicitly, and also mentions doctors not offering LARCs as often as they should.***
Of the 60 000 abortions performed, contraceptives were used in 30 000 cases. 14 000 used the pill or LARCs. That article states even IUDs and injections can fail. Nothing is 100% except abstinence.
***Thus, my conclusion is perfectly valid: [2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

The abortion rate in the US has been falling since the 1980s, and yet the total fertility rate (births per woman) has not increased.
***
Consider these:
[7] (Looks like the long recycled edition should have been saved but this will have to do)

[8]

[9]

[10]

***Notice how the Netherlands, with its “Long Live Love” sex-ed program that begins at 13, has rock-bottom rates of abortion, teen pregnancy, unplanned pregnancy in general, and STDs/STIs. This is a place where abortion providers are easy to access, and free to the user, and it’s common to begin having sex in one’s teens, under one’s parents’ own roof, with their knowledge and permission.***
Italy has low teen pregnancy and abortion rates (marginally higher than the Dutch) where the Catholic Church plays a very prominent role in their education system. Sex education there is not even mandatory. The Dutch model isn’t the only one out there.
***Oh really? Then explain why for centuries conservatives have tried so very hard to ensure that women remain ignorant about their bodies, their sexuality in general, and their capacity for pleasure. Explain Anthony Comstock, and all his successors. Explain why contraceptives had to be sold under euphemisms like “womb veils.” Explain why the Mary Tyler Moore show was so groundbreaking in its depiction of an unmarried adult woman who was sexually active. There’s so much more.***
We’re talking about today.
***Ideally couples grow together, but plenty of times they grow apart, and that’s only when the infidelity is discovered! Wildly different sex drives (initially or over time), incompatible levels of kink, basic physiology, and the like are not easily overcome. As for making more comparisons, yes, people can find out what they really want.***
So objectification is okay. ‘You’re no fun anymore so I’ll dump you’. Many cases of infidelity are not due to sex. The most cited causes are more emotionally based even for men.

#32 Comment By Outsider On September 22, 2017 @ 2:45 am

Gretchen @ September 21, 2017 at 12:02 am
That anecdote is so rare. The vast majority of those who grew up in the ‘purity culture’ have satisfying sex lives.
The first time is always awkward and associated with nervousness, in or outside of marriage.
The MO of the Left (any side in politics) is this, take a very rare circumstance and blow it out of proportion for propaganda purposes.

#33 Comment By BadReligion On September 22, 2017 @ 12:01 pm

“Sure. I’m the King of France. Or you’re an outlier. That’s the problem with anecdotes in this case.”

I agree.

“Of the 60 000 abortions performed, contraceptives were used in 30 000 cases. 14 000 used the pill or LARCs. That article states even IUDs and injections can fail. Nothing is 100% except abstinence.”

So half of them weren’t even trying, and the vast majority of the rest weren’t competent. This is exactly why accurate sexual information is crucial! Yes, LARCs can rarely fail, like sterilization, less than 1% of the time. Note that both can be difficult to come by in the US, the former for reasons of cost and reluctance/ignorance among physicians, and the latter due to a paternalistic, infuriating attitude from the same doctors. “You’re too young…” So one is old enough to have a kid, but too young to decide not to?

You’re forgetting hysterectomy (100%), and combining more than one contraceptive method (virtually foolproof, and recommended by the Dutch). A very small part of the population practices abstinence, and also, are you recommending that for married couples? In the US, fifteen percent of abortion-seeking women are married, and globally, the majority are!

As for Italy, I don’t think you’re correct:
[11]

Regarding the study about the UK, yes, qua Karan Singh, development [may be] is the best contraceptive, in this case referring to educational achievement.

I’ve read enough of Michael J. New not to take him seriously. I really don’t have time to go into it now.

“We’re talking about today.”

Yes, indeed we are: [12]

“So objectification is okay. ‘You’re no fun anymore so I’ll dump you’.”

No, I’m not sure what fallacy you’ve just committed, but it’s one of them. In other words, I’m referring to intimacy, not objectification. Also, this sort of thing is pretty emotional.

#34 Comment By BaltimoreMatt On September 22, 2017 @ 12:14 pm

I read this article in the bathroom of a Regal Theater while hiding from a loud gang trans youth, 69 strong

#35 Comment By Phil On September 22, 2017 @ 1:05 pm

I grew up with a “purity culture”. My experience doesn’t match the characterizations made in some of the comments nor do those comments match with plenty of people’s experiences.
The boys were taught pretty much the same things as the girls so the double standard and assumed patriarchy doesn’t exist.
I’ve been in a few men’s Bible studies and groups where we talked honestly about struggles, faith and marriage among other things in a safe environment. Most entered marriage as virgins. Not one has regretted waiting before marriage.
Even those who had sex before marriage before being converted or slipped up or had more than one partner before conversion all say waiting was much better. They found it was more fulfilling and complete. They’d prefer not having any of those previous experiences.
I know these are anecdotes but it’s very consistent with the general “trend”.

#36 Comment By MEOW On September 22, 2017 @ 4:54 pm

Yes! Possibly true. Then I would have to leave ASAP or listen to them exhort the values of Gavin Newsom (can you believe this?) or Hillary Clinton. Being celebrate is the answer. Blessings

#37 Comment By Outsider On September 23, 2017 @ 1:27 am

***So half of them weren’t even trying, and the vast majority of the rest weren’t competent. This is exactly why accurate sexual information is crucial! Yes, LARCs can rarely fail, like sterilization, less than 1% of the time. Note that both can be difficult to come by in the US, the former for reasons of cost and reluctance/ignorance among physicians, and the latter due to a paternalistic, infuriating attitude from the same doctors. “You’re too young…” So one is old enough to have a kid, but too young to decide not to?***
The doctors are right. Teens should be focusing on their school work. That’s what they do in China, India and Japan.
And they can decide not to have a child, by not having sex. Rarely fail still results in conception. You act as if teens are possess by some force where they can’t stop themselves from having sex.

***You’re forgetting hysterectomy (100%), and combining more than one contraceptive method (virtually foolproof, and recommended by the Dutch).***
Advocating teens to opt for hysterectomies is a new one.

***A very small part of the population practices abstinence, and also, are you recommending that for married couples? In the US, fifteen percent of abortion-seeking women are married, and globally, the majority are!***
And how many of those are due to failed contraception in the US? Without that, any analysis is incomplete.
Globally, there’s a host of variables and variances so focus on a country on its own and then compare.
Most teens in the US don’t have sex and it looks like that proportion is continuing to increase.

***As for Italy, I don’t think you’re correct:
[13]
It’s a recent project. In other words, teen pregnancy and abortion rates were low prior to this recent project.

***I’ve read enough of Michael J. New not to take him seriously. I really don’t have time to go into it now.***
Do outline your criticism of him, otherwise there’s a good change you are criticising him simply because the findings don’t work with your ideology.

***Yes, indeed we are: [14]
Not really. The high proportion of people who lack knowledge on biology indicates that even in states where sex education is mandated are failing to teach the more specific details of reproductive biology. That has nothing to do with ‘suppression’. You’ve failed to demonstrate a causal link. Also you have to consider a number of variables such as the syllabi of each state, the number of hours taught, what is emphasised and etc. Some of these data aren’t collected, mostly due to the difficulties in recording them but also some are not easy to quantify. Without analysing all relevant variables, you’re making an unsubstantiated claim about a segment of society you happen to be biased against.

***No, I’m not sure what fallacy you’ve just committed, but it’s one of them. In other words, I’m referring to intimacy, not objectification. Also, this sort of thing is pretty emotional.***
Intimacy, something so personal and rendering one vulnerable should be open to as many people as possible. That makes sense in some illogical way.
Regardless, those who don’t go around trialling partners have more fulfilling marriages than those who do.
Non-sexual interactions are the most common causes of infidelity.

#38 Comment By Outsider On September 23, 2017 @ 1:37 am

Phil @ September 22, 2017 at 1:05 pm

I get the feeling some on the Left deliberately mischaracterise the so-called purity culture and those who uphold chastity. Their contempt for self-control, self-sacrificial life-long marriage, monogamy, tradition and rules is palpable.

#39 Comment By BadReligion On September 23, 2017 @ 1:42 pm

“The doctors are right. Teens should be focusing on their school work. That’s what they do in China, India and Japan.
And they can decide not to have a child, by not having sex. Rarely fail still results in conception. You act as if teens are possess by some force where they can’t stop themselves from having sex.”

I’m actually not talking about teens in this case. (To mention the original subject here, most abortions in the US are sought by adult women who already have at least one child.) Since you brought it up, you don’t seem to be correct about India: [15]

[15]

China: [16]

I don’t think Japanese youth are particularly inspirational these days, despite having little sex: [17]

[18]

I was actually referring to adults who get turned down for sterilization (and sometimes even LARCs) for a host of condescending, paternalistic reasons, and have to doctor-shop. Check out reddit’s childfree board, since you don’t seem to have encountered this before: [19]
Or perhaps this: [20]

Outright contraceptive failure is indeed very rare, and much less common than failure among those instructed relentlessly to not have sex, who, when they do, don’t really know how to protect themselves:

[21] (“Why do so many evangelical teenagers become pregnant?”)

Even Regnerus himself acknowledges some of this: [22]

“Advocating teens to opt for hysterectomies is a new one.”

Again, I’m not (for the most part) talking about teens. I’m talking about a foolproof method that you overlooked, and doctors will often refuse for the same bogus reasons as other kinds of sterilization.

“It’s a recent project. In other words, teen pregnancy and abortion rates were low prior to this recent project.”

I can’t get to any links right now, thanks to this browser at work, so I’ll just say that I don’t think that shaming and stigmatization are worth it, when other strategies are available.

“Do outline your criticism of him, otherwise there’s a good change you are criticising him simply because the findings don’t work with your ideology.”

Michael New is somebody who wanted to keep Terri Schiavo in her hopeless state of un-life indefinitely, and seemed unable to comprehend why that might be a terrible idea. The same goes for the case of Robert (Bob) Lattimer in Canada, or why someone might rather die before dementia overcomes them. This isn’t directly tied to this issue, but it gives me little interest in giving him the proverbial time of day. Also, I can turn your statement about ideology right back at you, considering the evidence I’ve provided.

“Without analysing all relevant variables, you’re making an unsubstantiated claim about a segment of society you happen to be biased against.”

“Intimacy, something so personal and rendering one vulnerable should be open to as many people as possible. That makes sense in some illogical way.
Regardless, those who don’t go around trialling partners have more fulfilling marriages than those who do.”

See the “red-blue” links above.

“I get the feeling some on the Left deliberately mischaracterise the so-called purity culture and those who uphold chastity. Their contempt for self-control, self-sacrificial life-long marriage, monogamy, tradition and rules is palpable.”

No, we mostly recognize that not everybody (in fact, possibly most people) fits into those paradigms, and harm reduction is a good thing.

Speaking of harm, here’s what one gets with a search for “purity culture” “damage.” [23]..0.4816.10005.0.10228.23.23.0.0.0.0.132.1996.17j5.22.0….0…1.1.64.psy-ab..1.21.1924…0i131k1.0.0r6kcXMuUnQ

Consider also “recovery”, “shame”, etc.

#40 Comment By BadReligion On September 23, 2017 @ 2:28 pm

More, much more, about the damages of purity culture, and the ignorance and sexism it engenders: [24]

#41 Comment By Outsider On September 23, 2017 @ 5:00 pm

*** [15] ***
Did I make the claim all Indian teens aren’t having sex? No. That opinion piece doesn’t offer quantitative data.
Despite some drawbacks in the data, it’s reasonable to believe most teens in India don’t.
[25]

***China: [16] ***
It looks like China wants to fail just like the West.

***I don’t think Japanese youth are particularly inspirational these days, despite having little sex: [17] ***
Did I write teens should work themselves to death? No.

*** [21] (“Why do so many evangelical teenagers become pregnant?”)

Even Regnerus himself acknowledges some of this: [22] ***
There’s a difference between affiliation and active participation as mentioned in both of them. I can call myself the Queen but am I? Of course not.

***I can’t get to any links right now, thanks to this browser at work, so I’ll just say that I don’t think that shaming and stigmatization are worth it, when other strategies are available.***
It’s not ‘shaming’, it’s about teaching self-control. Promiscuity leads problems.
[26]
There is very high probability a causal relationship exists because of neurochemicals and chemical pathways involved in relationship-bonding mechanisms.

***Michael New is somebody who wanted to keep Terri Schiavo in her hopeless state of un-life indefinitely, and seemed unable to comprehend why that might be a terrible idea. The same goes for the case of Robert (Bob) Lattimer in Canada, or why someone might rather die before dementia overcomes them. This isn’t directly tied to this issue, but it gives me little interest in giving him the proverbial time of day. Also, I can turn your statement about ideology right back at you, considering the evidence I’ve provided.***
What does that have to do with the data? Nothing. You simply can’t accept that the dominant narrative of no self-restraint, which you adhere to religiously, is faulty. You admit his involvement with Terri Schiavo has nothing to do with the data. We’re talking about data.

***See the “red-blue” links above.***
[27]
[28]
If you dispute the analyses of these findings, explain why they’re wrong. Not liking them because of your personal biases is not sufficient.
As for divorce as a measure of marital happiness, ‘blue states’ have lower marriage rates. You can’t divorce without marrying in the first place.
As for teen pregnancies, those states have high African-American and Hispanic populations. They also have the highest teen pregnancy rates. Poverty plays a big role in that.
[29]
Yet again, you’ve failed to analyse other relevant variables involved thus the claim you peddle is weak at best.

***No, we mostly recognize that not everybody (in fact, possibly most people) fits into those paradigms, and harm reduction is a good thing.***
If most don’t fit into those paradigms (and you haven’t shown the evidence) it’s due to the social environment.
[30]

***Speaking of harm, here’s what one gets with a search for “purity culture” “damage.” [23]..0.4816.10005.0.10228.23.23.0.0.0.0.132.1996.17j5.22.0….0…1.1.64.psy-ab..1.21.1924…0i131k1.0.0r6kcXMuUnQ

Consider also “recovery”, “shame”, etc.***
Do you not know how search engines work? The most clicked items appear at the top. They are not representative of *real* life because those negative stories are rare.
Again, you’re the one who is ideological not me. You and others take rare circumstances and blow them out of proportion. For example, in the CBE link, the seven lies are not found in most lessons or programmes.

#42 Comment By Outsider On September 23, 2017 @ 5:23 pm

ery little is known about the influence of sexual timing on relationship outcomes. Is it better to test sexual compatibility as early as possible or show sexual restraint so that other areas of the relationship can develop? In this study, we explore this question with a sample of 2035 married individuals by examining how soon they became sexually involved as a couple and how this timing is related to their current sexual quality, relationship communication, and relationship satisfaction and perceived stability. Both structural equation and group comparison analyses demonstrated that sexual restraint was associated with better relationship outcomes, even when controlling for education, the number of sexual partners, religiosity, and relationship length.
[31]

#43 Comment By BadReligion On September 24, 2017 @ 3:55 pm

OK, so. More data:

Getting married too early is a very reliable predictor of the increased likelihood of divorce: [32]

Even Regnerus says that it’s folly to imagine people, other than a very few, remaining abstinent into their late 20s. Note the other factors listed (and linked to data) there.

The assumption that cohabitation disrupts marriages isn’t accurate, based on more recent data: [33]

As for India, I have a couple of news sources that refer specifically to studies and date, although I don’t see the studies themselves. Note that much of what’s happening seems to be among the same demographics you claim are buried in their books, i.e. not rural:

[34]

[35]

As for Japan, the point is that while young people are having much less sex, it’s part of a cluster of serious dysfunction, and not really a positive thing at all. They could use a little action!

As for lower rates of marriage in blue states, remember that we are indeed talking about rates, thus divorce rates are measured as a fraction of all marriages.

The red-families/blue-families situation has much more to do with walks of life than geography, and in fact it’s the sort of thing brought up again and again in Dreher’s blog.

The kind of paradigm you’re advocating is, country after country, era after era, enforced through shame and stigma. Are you advocating stonings and scarlet letters? Probably not, but even tsk-tsking and ostracism is bad enough.

Trying to socially engineer it doesn’t work well, and often backfires:

[36]

[37]

[38]

Most people don’t fit into the paradigm you champion, I’d argue that most never have, and it’s counterproductive to insist upon pursuing it.

#44 Comment By BadReligion On September 24, 2017 @ 6:27 pm

You know what else? According to the CDC, the age of sexual debut has indeed gone up, as I’ve mentioned in previous comments to other posts, as among other reasons to doubt Dreher’s narrative of civilizational collapse. The average number of lifetime partners has also decreased.

I’m not arguing that either of these are bad developments, by the way.

But, take a look at this data from about ten years ago from the CDC. Start with Table 1, on page 17. You’ll see that while most women have their sexual debut by 18 or 19, go on to see that the percentage of those who have not drops to 3.4% by age 25. This is shortly below the average age of first marriage, and although I recognize that the median age is a more accurate measure, the point is this:

You’re not living in reality, not even remotely. I wanted to add all of this since I’ve noticed that you, like quite a few people, seem to have conflated adolescent sex with premarital sex. How young do you want people to get married, especially when that increases the likelihood of divorce? How sexually frustrated do you want society to be?

Most importantly, since the overwhelming majority of the population isn’t living in your paradigm, why can’t our policies make people as safe from bad consequences as possible? Whence this desire to punish?

#45 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On September 24, 2017 @ 8:17 pm

Perhaps lusty women prefer to be liberals? Cause and effect can go either way.

#46 Comment By Outsider On September 25, 2017 @ 3:28 pm

***Getting married too early is a very reliable predictor of the increased likelihood of divorce: ***
True but that’s ignoring the other variables involved. What is early? Marriages in the early 20s aren’t worse off. Marriages at 18 to 22 were unstable and then things improve past that.

‘The greatest indicated likelihood of being in an intact marriage of the highest quality is among those who married at ages 22–25, net of the estimated effects of time since first marriage and several variables that might commonly affect age at marriage and marital outcomes. The negative relationship beyond the early to mid-twenties between age at marriage and marital success is likely to be at least partially spurious, and thus it would be premature to conclude that the optimal time for first marriage for most persons is ages 22–25. However, the findings do suggest that most persons have little or nothing to gain in the way of marital success by deliberately postponing marriage beyond the mid-twenties.’
[39]

***The assumption that cohabitation disrupts marriages isn’t accurate, based on more recent data:***
‘[W]e found that […] direct marrieds reporting the highest relationship quality and cohabitors without marriage plans reporting the lowest marital quality. In the middle were the two largest groups: marrieds who premaritally cohabited and cohabitors with plans to marry. These two groups did not differ in terms of relationship quality. ‘
[40]

***As for India, I have a couple of news sources that refer specifically to studies and date, although I don’t see the studies themselves. Note that much of what’s happening seems to be among the same demographics you claim are buried in their books, i.e. not rural:***
Seems like they want to head for the same path to academic stagnation.

***As for Japan, the point is that while young people are having much less sex, it’s part of a cluster of serious dysfunction, and not really a positive thing at all. They could use a little action!***
Encouraging young people to have sex is not a good idea. Sex is not a panacea for everything as people like you would like to believe.

***As for lower rates of marriage in blue states, remember that we are indeed talking about rates, thus divorce rates are measured as a fraction of all marriages.***
Depends which rate is used. Most divorce rates use ‘x per 1000 persons’. That can’t be subtracted from the marriage rate, which is also reported in the same method because it ignores the role times plays in it. Such data needs to be operated on to get the percentage of marriages ending in divorce and even then there are pitfalls. The links you provided are different measures.

***The red-families/blue-families situation has much more to do with walks of life than geography, and in fact it’s the sort of thing brought up again and again in Dreher’s blog.***
I agree. There was a study I provided a link to earlier that showed that.

***The kind of paradigm you’re advocating is, country after country, era after era, enforced through shame and stigma. Are you advocating stonings and scarlet letters? Probably not, but even tsk-tsking and ostracism is bad enough.***
You keep saying ‘shame’ over and over again as if that makes it true. The vast majority don’t heap shame but I reiterate again, delaying sex and developing self-control skills are useful. It’s like you’ve completely ignored the peer-reviewed links I posted. Ostracism of this sort is uncommon. Again, for the third time, your ‘side’ takes uncommon events and blow them out of proportion.

***Trying to socially engineer it doesn’t work well, and often backfires:***
I never supported those pledges. They only work for those who were willing to do so in the first place. Those teaching self-control and the positives of discipline are better.

***Most people don’t fit into the paradigm you champion, I’d argue that most never have, and it’s counterproductive to insist upon pursuing it.***
That’s not what those empirical studies are showing, which I would assume you ignored instead of actually considering their findings.

#47 Comment By Outsider On September 25, 2017 @ 3:47 pm

***You’re not living in reality, not even remotely. I wanted to add all of this since I’ve noticed that you, like quite a few people, seem to have conflated adolescent sex with premarital sex. How young do you want people to get married, especially when that increases the likelihood of divorce? How sexually frustrated do you want society to be?***
It’s you who’s not living in reality. You’re the one who’s taking rare situations and blowing them out of proportion and ignoring findings of certain individuals because you hate them for some political involvement.
Sexual frustration is subjective. The Freudian influences in most people’s understanding of it is rubbish. As for the more ‘concrete’ version, we know that pushing sex onto children and teens is part of the problem as the study on media consumption shows. You act as if humans can’t control themselves, which is not true. Biology isn’t necessarily destiny as anyone with a background in biology would know.
Self-control is a valuable trait, one that isn’t taught anymore. Self-control isn’t just about sex but for a whole host of other things.
The above comment should address ideal marriage age. Marriages past 22 tend to be stable

***Most importantly, since the overwhelming majority of the population isn’t living in your paradigm, why can’t our policies make people as safe from bad consequences as possible? Whence this desire to punish?***
I have no desire to ‘punish’. If people don’t want to consider the empirical evidence that’s fine. People are free to choose the subpar over the optimal.