In 2002, the study reported, 22 percent of Americans aged 15 to 24 were still virgins. By 2008, that number was up to 28 percent. Other research suggests that this trend may date back decades, and that young Americans have been growing more sexually conservative since the late 1980s.His column, "Why Monogamy Matters", says that people have always had sex before marriage, but it was oriented toward marriage, toward a long term relationship, not a casual linkup. He then points out a book by two sociologists, Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker, in their recent book, Premarital Sex in America, and then states:
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.This suggests that sometimes the "lies" we tell ourselves about our culture are actually helpful in making that culture work.
Among the young people Regnerus and Uecker studied, the happiest women were those with a current sexual partner and only one or two partners in their lifetime. Virgins were almost as happy, though not quite, and then a young woman’s likelihood of depression rose steadily as her number of partners climbed and the present stability of her sex life diminished.
When social conservatives talk about restoring the link between sex, monogamy and marriage, they often have these kinds of realities in mind. The point isn’t that we should aspire to some Arcadia of perfect chastity. Rather, it’s that a high sexual ideal can shape how quickly and casually people pair off, even when they aren’t living up to its exacting demands. The ultimate goal is a sexual culture that makes it easier for young people to achieve romantic happiness — by encouraging them to wait a little longer, choose more carefully and judge their sex lives against a strong moral standard.
The weird part of the story is that after writing the column, Mr Douthat then writes a blog post in the same New York Times talking about it. In the blog post he takes on Dana Goldstein, who has her own post up on sexuality, etc. There is a link at Mr Douthat's site. To avoid accusations of TMI, I am living the link-following to you.
Regards — Cliff
3 comments:
One always has to worry about statisticians who are confused between correlation and causation. It's equally likely that depression causes promiscuity, and these data provide no clue as to which might be which. Of course, this rarely stops those with an agenda from quoting their opinions as if they might be fact...
Yes, there is the chance of confusion between correlation and causation, but there is also the paralysis of analysis. I think that there is reason to believe this is so, although in science truth is always changing.
Regards — Cliff
I disagree that there is mere "chance of confusion"--my observation is that it is nearly guaranteed that people will confuse correlation with causation whenever it matches their preconceptions. Human history is rife with examples, from flat-earthers to Newtonian physicists. Sooner or later all the flaws to Einstein's theories will come to light, too.
In my unscientific observation and experience, many unhappy people tend to do a lot of questionably healthy things, from overindulging in alcohol and cigarettes, to poor choices in coupling. Studies show that "abstinence-encouraged" teens tend to have more premarital sex than others--should we presume then that sex education leads to more moral behavior?
Post a Comment