The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Echidne of the Snakes Really Hates Christianity and Marriage Doesn’t She?

Posted on | March 8, 2011 | 24 Comments


Jaana Goodrich (“Echdne of the Snakes“) participates in an economics panel
with Paul Krugman and Duncan “Atrios” Black, at EschaCon ’08 Conference,
Philadelphia, March 29, 2008 (Photo by A Spork in the Drawer)

Yesterday, there was a Memeorandum thread about Ross Douthat’s latest column. I glanced at the column, and considered blogging about it, but then Charlie Sheen got axed from Two and a Half Men, so I never got around to writing about the Harvard prodigy’s opus. (Ross dialed toll-free on the SAT, as they say, which means never having to worry about hustling up blog traffic.)

So this morning, I awoke to discover another Memeorandum thread, this one devoted to Echidne of the Snakes blogger Jaana Goodrich attacking Douthat. Evidently, Harvard Boy struck a nerve here:

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.
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.

The research cited is from a book, Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think about Marrying, by sociologists Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker. And it turns out that Regnerus is to Echidne of the Snakes what windmills were to Don Quixote: She’s damned near obsessed with him, because he is a “Christian who advocates early marriage” — oh, noes!1!1!!

Echidne’s first reaction to publication of the Regnerus/Uecker book was a post titled, “The Price of Uppity Sluttiness (Is a Lonely Old Age),” in which she made much of discovering that Regnerus had written this in the August 2009 issue of Christianity Today:

[A]fter years of studying the sexual behavior and family decision-making of young Americans, I’ve come to the conclusion that Christians have made much ado about sex but are becoming slow and lax about marriage — that more significant, enduring witness to Christ’s sacrificial love for his bride.

So Regnerus has a Genesis 2/Mark 10 understanding of marriage as a divine covenant, a sacramental institution, in which sex is more than random impulse — and this causes head-exploding anxiety reactions for Echidne of the Snakes, who summarizes Douthat’s column thus:

1. Tell that more young people are choosing abstinence. This must mean that they are wingnuts.
2. Quote only studies which support the view that the wimminz are unhappy with premarital sex. Or that the wimminz are just unhappy with all their freedoms. Don’t mention the usual corollary of wingnuttery which argues that the menz are outrageously happy with all the booty they can trawl.
3. Then remind us that Planned Parenthood is a Very Bad Thing. Its existence encourages wild sex among teenagers. Guess why? Because they aren’t getting properly punished for its consequences. The gurlz, he means.

Set aside, for a moment, Echidne’s imputation that Regnerus and Uecker have produced pseudo-science that Harvard Boy is naively (or perhaps, cynically) regurgitating for his readers.

Instead, ask yourself this: What if Regnerus and Uecker are right?

What would be the consequences of having scientific proof that pre-marital chastity and marital fidelity — “One Life, One Wife”  – confer socio-economic advantages not only on individuals who uphold such values, but also produce advantages for the larger society?

The implications for public policy, I’ll leave to the wonks. Rather, I suggest the likelihood that this scientific insight could lead people to consider the possibility that the Bible is actually true.

No wonder Echidne’s head is exploding. Ideas have consequences.

UPDATE: Oh, this is unfortunate and lamentable: Some of the commenters on Echidne’s blog post have decided to make personal attacks on Douthat and his wife:

CWalz: Speaking as one of those “sluts” I found virginity highly over rated. Ross is just afraid that some of us “experienced” women will find folks like him woefully inadequate in the sack if we have someone to compare him to. That would be my supposition which I think could be as equally provable as all of Ross’ suppositions on the subject.

Sukabi: I think Douchehat’s wife is a very unsatisfied woman, and when she complains about his random poking in the sack, he calls her a slut and proceeds to write one of these columns…

DrDick: I am still not convinced that Ross is not still a virgin. I have seldom encountered someone as anti-sex and pleasure in my life.

Of course, scientific truth is independent of the sexual adequacy of Harvard graduates, just as truth is independent of the attractiveness of feminist bloggers. And thank God for that.

Bookmark and Share
Category: Feminism, Marriage, Sex

Comments

  • http://thatmrgguy.wordpress.com/ Mike

    As Progressive Liberals say…Damn the facts…full steam ahead with our Socialist, non Christian agenda.

  • Pingback: I’m Much Happier Married Than When I Was Single « That Mr. G Guy's Blog

  • http://athenesword.posterous.com/ ThePaganTemple

    Yeah, Echidne is about as progressive as they come, but on the other hand, she was one of the very few, maybe the only, progressive female to openly defend Sarah Palin from all the unfair bullshit, and she did so in pretty straightforward terms, with no caveats, while acknowledging that she strongly opposed her political views. I have to respect her for that, if nothing else.

  • Anonymous

    The worst part is when the girls throw themselves on you as a way to say “Hi, do you like me or want to know my name?” I love that having sex is the new receiving flowers.

    Say you did manage to get me in bed. Do you think next morning I’ll get up extra early, resign from Church, tell my family and friends “I just had an orgasam and was super wrong about trying to have principles,” and hurry back to make you coffee while giggling about how “tots awesome” Obama is? Even victory is defeat.

    Congrats girls, great culture makeover there.

  • Roxeanne de Luca

    Dumb question from the scientist: if we really care about young women’s emotional well-being, why should it matter what form is best for achieving that?* Wouldn’t chastity versus premarital sex be like working a job versus playing a sport versus staying at home all day: if one of those is substantially better for young women, recommend it?

    Or is this about more than what is good for young ladies and about shoving an ideology down their throats, their well-being, health, and emotional stability be damned?

    *Assuming the atheist/agnostic standpoint, in which you figure out what works best and then do that.

  • The Wondering Jew

    I almost sent you the Douthat article Stacy, because I thought to myself “Hey, Douthat wrote an article that Stacy will actually like!”. Glad to see you found it on your own.

    And of course, the attacks on it are as wrongheaded as they are predictable.

  • mojo

    “A minor Greek goddess”

    Well, when she grows up, maybe I’ll care. But probably not.

  • Mikey NTH

    Were the subjects happier because they were more chaste/monogamous, or were they more chaste and monogsmous because they were happier? There is a correlation, but which way does the causation flow?

    Perhaps those who were more sexually active were so because they were unhappier, instead of being unhappier because they were more sexually active.

    Note: These are actual serious questions.

  • Imprudent Speculator

    Exactly my question. Without any scientific analysis, I think the cause and effect are reversed: Women who were happier with themselves either 1) did not value themselves so cheaply (low self esteem) that they would only have worth if they could bed multiple men or 2) were so unhappy and wacked out that they drove away most guys who came along. The happy ones were comfortable in their own skin. Just seems logical to me, but I’m a man.

  • Joe

    For all this talk about sex, nothing about Echidne’s writing is the least bit sexy. Why is that?

    Heck, Camile Paglia can fire things up better.

  • http://www.haemet.blogivists.com Roxeanne de Luca

    I’ll give you a serious, pro-chastity answer: good questions, worth investigating, and they show why chastity is important.

    It’s irksome to me as a feminist that we would encourage young women to participate in behaviour that is generally symptomatic of a larger problem. For example, dropping off the soccer team and having your grades go down in the gutter is often a symptom of depression, but we don’t then say, “Hey, kids, as long as you aren’t doing this because you’re depressed, go right ahead!”. Rather, we understand that the behaviours which troubled people engage in are often destructive on their own, and that normalising them is problematic. One of my teacher friends points out that teachers are told that an age-inappropriate interest in sex is a good indicator of abuse. When schools start teaching fourth-graders about fisting, then, it’s hard to tell who has been abused.

    If women are having lots of premarital sex to deal with emotional issues, the correct response is not to make sure that everyone is having premarital sex; it’s to help those women. Encouraging everyone to act out the symptoms of depression doesn’t alleviate the depression for those suffering from it. Taking away any vestige of an internal mechanism to stop self-destructive behaviour doesn’t make that behaviour less self-destructive, nor does it help women on the path to happiness and health.

  • http://www.haemet.blogivists.com Roxeanne de Luca

    There being one of the great paradoxes of all time: there is no bigger turn-off in the world than hearing a progressive talk about sex.

    Sometimes, I think about printing out something from Feministing or now Echidne’s site and keeping it with me when I go on a date with my boyfriend. Instant chastity!

  • Anonymous

    Chicken-or-the-egg questions about the direction of causality, it seems to me, overlook the glaringly obvious point about the correlation: Screwing around doesn’t make women happier.

    That is to say, this research is most important in refuting a major claim about “sexual liberation.” For nearly half a century, we have been told that traditional morality — and especially the “patriarchal” institution of marriage — oppresses women, and that therefore to be “pro-woman,” one must support and advocate every form of sexual radicalism. According to that view, to condemn promiscuity is to engage in “slut-shaming,” to be guilty of misogyny.

    However, if it can be shown that “liberated” sexual behavior does not lead to greater happiness for women, the so-called “pro-sex feminist” argument is invalid. So you see that, from this perspective, it doesn’t matter whether happiness leads to less promiscuity or the other way around. The point is, promiscuity does not make women happy, which means that the whole argument for “sexual liberation” is a damned lie.

  • Freyja

    Consider this article from another liberal, SF Gate Columnist, Mark Morford:

    Christian Virgins Are Overrated / Think sex and drugs destroy America? Try naive chastity. Oh, and “Purity Balls”

    [...]
    Purity Balls. No, not some sort of newfangled spherical chastity device to be inserted using vacuum tubes and pulleys, but rather fancy creepy dress-up rituals taking place in towns like Colorado Springs and Tucson and Zoloft Jesusville, in which Christian dads rent a bad tux while their daughters, mostly teenagers but many as young as 6 or 7, get all dolled up in gowns from JCPenny and they all drive out to the airport Marriott and prepare to, well, lose their minds.

    It begins. At some point the daughter stands up, her pale arms wrapped around her daddy, and reads aloud a formal pledge that she will remain forever pure and virginal and sex-free until she is handed over, by her dad (who is actually called the “high priest” of the home), like some sort of sad hymenic gift, to her husband, who will receive her like the sanitized and overprotected and libidinously inept servant she so very much is. Praise!

    Would that I were making this up. [...]

    Interesting and compelling, yet just like the articles that claim the liberals will die out within a few generations because they do not reproduce as prolifically as conservatives, this article fails to fathom tha even though one is raised a certain way, one might wind up entirely different from one’s parents.

    From hanging out in some very conservative blogs full of fundamentalist christian (and yes, even ‘quiverfull’) women, it is quite clear to me that whether or not one derives pleasure from sex really has nothing to do with whether or not one was raised to know about and partake of sex prior to marriage. Any adult on this blog might also agree that life is a long haul and what one thought they knew about sex upon marrying (whether or not they had ‘saved it’)is likely going to change a lot over the years.

    Oh, blessed are we for the internet, which leadeth us to websites of wonderful widgets and enlightens us to the pleasurable potentialities of procreative play!

    We must forgive Mark, for he is a 1) man and 2) not in the Xian loop, for not knowing of the ‘Pleasure Parties’ making the rounds in christian ladies’ coffee clatches everywhere. Poor Mark – does he not realize that “sex happens”?

    Another thing Mark fails to recognize in his rather one-sided diatribe against virginal (vaginal, lol) purity is that those father-daughter balls are also seen by many who attend them as a great way for dads to spend time with their daughters during a time when it can become awkward or less-likely for fathers and daughters to do so. These balls are also seen by some as a great opportunity for dad to model to young daughter how a future date would happen – what sort of ‘gentlemanly’ behavior she might expect from a young man of her choosing. What Mark describes in his article is only one end of a spectrum of such balls – there are plenty of father-daughter balls that do not put such an emphasis on purity, emphasizing the fun relating of dad and daughter instead.

    What I want to know is – why is Mark so concerned about these pre-teen and teen girls and whether or not they have sex or are educated about sex before marriage?

    Does he not know that those young women, were they to be released from their fundamentalist christian sexual constraint through some intervention of God afer reading his moving and yet thoroughly under-researched article, would still be considered jailbait? Would that I were making this up! /grin

    Freyja
    with a big wink

  • gg

    Aren’t you guys at the age yet where you have gotten over sex obsessions? whats the big deal? its a bunch of spurtds and groans, bad smells and body odors.

    Can we stop romanticizing sex?

    Americans are hypnotized by sex, prob mostly because of media looking for quick bucks. Isn’t it all a little boring by now?

    It aint that big of a deal to let sex go, its just more nonsense on the path, like over eating.

    Its gross to think of a bunch of old farts* still stuck on getting horny.

    *Sorry, couldn’t resist that one. Is any one else out there a wee bit tired of the teenager level sex obsession of this culture?

    Hey its just an impulse. Big deal.

  • Anonymous

    It’s always fun to see how the lefto-feminist bloggers will respond to a Douthat column – all San Francisco schoolyard ad hominems that rarely address his actual arguments.

    Yeah, Douthat frequently comments on gender and/or makes traditionalist arguments, but it’s bizarre how the harmless, geeky Douthat sends the lefto-feminists into such a blinding fury! Well, if they’re going to try to dismiss Douthat’s arguments via pseudo-sexual-psychologizing, two can play at that game . . . so which side is getting all hot and bothered?

  • Anonymous

    Both you and RS McCain provide good responses to what was a good question (or point) from Mikey NTH. It’s not so much that traditional “family values” cause happiness as that the so-called “liberated” values (those often associated with cultural Marxism) are correlated with social/psychological dysfunctions.

  • Pingback: Mr. G Misses the Point : The Other McCain

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZTKDOEQUDXFE7HFJW3U6DIOSWI R

    Progs are crazy –they’re all for ‘sustainability’ and the ‘precautionary principle’, except when it comes to govt fiscal policy or social engineering.

    The progs also bash Creationists (with quite a bit of justification at least for the young-earthers) for denying evolution, but then they utterly ignore what evolutionary psychologists have been uncovering about human behavior — which much more often than not actually generally *confirms* the proscriptions of traditional morality.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

    While “Feminism” was always active and a driving force within the movement for equal civil rights for women from suffrage, pay and job discrimination, and educational opportunity, it was also always comprised of its own far different agenda, associated with radical socialists.

    It is what socialist cells do: infiltrate movements with growing support and just causes, and attempt to bend them to their agenda. It happened with women’s rights, the black civil rights movement, the ’60s anti-war and hippie movements, the environmental movement, international relief organizations, and others (with varying degrees of success in each, but a common aim in all).

    Modern “Feminism” has little or nothing to do with rights for women or what personal choices benefit or harm women. It’s more directly involved with socialist legislative, regulatory, and judicial outcomes. The most obvious example was the Feminist reactions to Bill Clinton’s sex scandals – they instantly did about-faces on nearly every tenet of their long preaching about sexual harassment, consent, and exploitation, and frequently and energetically employed the vulgar “attack the victim” tactic they had even sought to be banned as a criminal defense.

    While I agree most Feminists hate men, it’s not a sex thing. They hate women, too. They hate everybody, perhaps especially themselves.

  • Pingback: New OUP book links premarital sex and promiscuity to poor mental health « Wintery Knight

  • Mikey NTH

    Well, I was thinking more along the lines of if the unhappiness comes first. In that case the argument can be made that ‘like going and getting good and drunk, being promiscuous isn’t going to make you happy and will only give you one more problem – go find out what the problem making you unhappy really is’.

    I think that is different from the promiscuity causing the unhappiness, because then you would have the case of a formerly happy person doing something that is making her unhappy, and then the argument can be made ‘the reason you are unhappy is because of this. stop doing that and you will be happy again’.

    I think there is a difference here between the two, but then again I could be wrong.

  • Mikey NTH

    You know, I wasn’t attacking you or this post; I was just kind of pondering about it. Is this the source, or is this a sympton? Or both?

    Placing that goes a long way, I think, to giving an argument that can hold up to the attacks that it will receive.

    And it will be attacked, and not by me.

  • Pingback: Atlantic Crossing : The Other McCain

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE