Manufacturing dissent

Ezra Klein quotes from the American Sociological Association's statement on gay parents to contradict Scalia's statement that sociologists disagree about whether gays make good parents.  I think that he could go one further.  Scalia is probably taking Mark Regnerus's recent study as evidence of dissent within sociology.  Problems with Regnerus's study have been covered extensively, due to the e.g., defining gay parents as parents who have ever had a same-sex relationship, no matter how short-lived, as well as the conservative funding sources. The right comparison is obviously between children of stable same-sex and stable opposite-sex relationships, rather than between children of unstable same-sex and children of stable opposite-sex relationships. 

Scalia may hold a view common among conservatives that academic consensus derives more from liberal bias than from knowledge, so are only interested in findings contrary to liberal views.  Like many, I would call that cherry-picking, but conservatives seem to regard it as a necessary corrective.  It's a huge problem, and it's why there seems to be a red reality and a blue reality.

Two similar examples in my research areas:

Out of ~12 studies on virginity pledges, 2 find that pledges work, and those are the ones quoted by conservatives, especially because the first study found that pledges work (Bearman and Bruckner 2001 in American Journal of Sociology).  I reanalyzed B&B's data using better methods and found pledges didn't work. 

Out of hundreds or thousands of studies on condoms' effectiveness in preventing STIs, one prominent study (Zenilman 1995) found that people who reported condom use still got STIs.  Zenilman concluded that the subjects had over-reported their condom use; right-wingers said the study proved condoms don't work, which resulted in CDC being ordered to remove information about condoms from their website during the Bush administration. 

The biggest examples are global warming and Keynesian economics.  In red reality, the 0.3% of scientists who "don't believe" in global warming matter more than the 99.7% who do, and Scalia's discounting of the academic consensus on gay marriage is just the tip of the melting iceberg. 

Romanticizing religious strictures

David Brooks on Friday wrote about the merits of what he calls "rigorous theology." Moderate feel-good religion doesn't cut it, he says. He says that more rigorous religion is what motivates people to behave sexually, and that if Mormons refrain from coffee, that willpower must extend to the rest of their lives. Even setting aside the implicit "without god all is permitted" issue, his premise is dubious. The abstinence movement shows clear examples of religion not motivating people to behave sexually. Evangelical sociologist Mark Regnerus's book about evangelical teens describes how they compartmentalize their sexual behavior from the rest of their religiosity.

As for whether discipline in one area extends to others: I'm not aware of any research of the sort. My understanding of the psychology literature is that willpower is limited: if one is exerting willpower in one area, one has less will power for other efforts. On the other hand, a life-long dietary adherence requires no willpower at all. It's just habit, and habit requires no thought. In fact, people who break dietary restrictions for the first time describe the will-power that it takes to take that first habit-breaking step.

David Brooks keeps kosher himself, so I would think that he would have realized that habitual dietary laws don't impact will-power at all. Perhaps in the throes of Passover bread deprivation (his op-ed was published on the 4th day of Passover), he wanted to believe that his week without bread was bettering himself. Now that he can go back to bread, perhaps Brooks will realize how much he was romanticizing religious strictures. Or perhaps he'll continue keeping Passover for another month because the first week was so rigorous.

Song about breaking religious sex rules

I'm so proud of our University of Maryland undergraduates who wrote this song, called "I just broke Shomer." (i.e., touched a girl, against some interpretations of Jewish law that disallow touching the opposite sex until marriage.) It reminds me of my friends' 2005 song "No one's really shomer negiah."

Safe sex ads: where everyone is above average

New safe sex ad from Candies Foundation with Bristol Palin and Mike Sorrentino from Jersey Shore. First, Bristol looks a bit nervous, fidgeting as she's talking about sex and safe sex, which is odd since I would think they could try refilming until she didn't look nervous. Second, Mr. Sorentino whips out condoms, and brags that they're large-sized, and then offers one to Ms. Palin, just in case. A condom that's too large is only marginally better than no condom at all. What good does it do for a safe sex ad to raise the size issue when, by definition, only a small proportion of their viewers need large-sized condoms? While googling around for information about what proportion of males "need" large condoms, I found an article which said that the market share for a single large-sized brand went up from 5% to 20%, but that the condoms are not actually larger than other condoms.

My Baltimore Sun op-ed defending O'Donnell on abstinence, but not on poverty

My op-ed in today's Baltimore Sun says that O'Donnell's personal religious beliefs about abstinence and masturbation are reasonably mainstream evangelical beliefs, but that her mainstream Republican beliefs ignore that the Bible says that fortunate, wealthy societies have an obligation to provide for the poor.

Originally I framed the article as we should be sensitive to her because the Bible says to be sensitive to those who are alone through no fault of their own like widows, orphans, and converts, but the Bible also says societies have the obligation to be generous to the poor. This obligation to sensitivity for widows, orphans, and converts seems to extend to be sensitive also to people who are involuntarily single, as virtually all religious single adults are, and abstinence must be a particularly difficult subject for her since abstinence means that she has an idealized view of marriage and her eventual husband she hoped would love her for her beliefs and admire her for having stuck to them since her conversion to become more religious. I liked the parallelism, but it involved too much speculation about her personal life.

More importantly, I'm not a religious authority, so it's not my place to say what we should and shouldn't do.

Two good comments so far on Baltimore Sun. One said how to you judge which beliefs you criticize candidates for. That's a really terrific topic --- many politicians have personal religious beliefs, but they maintain a line between those beliefs and the policies that they support. One example is Joe Lieberman where it's my understanding that his personal religious beliefs should in theory make him more supportive of social programs to help the poor, but lately he has been voting against these programs for what may be political reasons. A case where religious beliefs do influence policy for Christine O'Donnell is that she is clearly extremely anti-abortion and anti-choice --- she would ban abortion even for rape survivors --- and there's every reason to expect she would vote that way, and that's a great reason to vote against her, but that's from her policy statements, not from her religious beliefs. On the other hand, there are some distinguished politicians who have personal beliefs against abortion, and they themselves would not have abortions except under limited circumstances, who have strongly pro-choice voting records. It would be a great study to look at when what we know of candidates' personal religious beliefs agree with their voting records, and when their personal religious beliefs contrast with them. And perhaps this study has already been done. Any political scientists to comment?

Second comment calls for holding politicians accountable for making "rational evidence-based decisions," and oh my, I am so in agreement with that. Not making evidence-based decisions, and instead making decisions for reasons of politics, is extremely common in our government. Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize winning economist and an expert in the Great Depression, and he's been writing op-eds for the past 2 years saying that we need to give more stimulus or unemployment is going to stay high for years and years, and we are going to lose a generation. And he's been saying the same theme over and over, and he's an extremely distinguished economist, a Nobel Prize winner, and not enough politicians listened to him to affect policy. And the failure to provide fiscal policy that can be adequate stimulus is the worst way that the government can fail people. We're talking about hurting young adults who happen to be coming of age now and during the next several years, and the effects of a worse job market when they come of age will affect them for their ENTIRE LIVES, and they will have not just lower earnings, but (judging by studies of past generations born in high unemployment eras) worse social problems. That's huge, and in my opinion way more important than abstinence education. But, yes, abstinence education is a shame, especially how $50 million abstinence-only funding came back in the health care reform bill in order to get it through Congress. And both of those issues are because of the 60 vote filibuster, and the fact that Senators no longer have to actually filibuster, they can just claim that they are. Some have said that if they actually had to speak for 24 hours straight, they would do it less. Again, the political scientists can speak.

Virgin dating site

Virgin dating site "use[s] virginity as a significant compatibility tool to bring people together. Some people may overlook the bonding power of virginity. Virginity as an important common aspect between people can lead to close friendships, or can even serve as a mutual precious gift of marriage."

I wonder how many users they will have and whether any will not also be on eharmony or a big evangelical dating site (presuming that there is an equivalent to jdate for evangelicals.) It is interesting that they would segment the evangelical dating market like this.

Twilight books romanticize domestic violence?

The Twilight book series has been thought of as promoting abstinence, so I've followed it somewhat because of my work. I found it interesting to read this post, which goes through the checklist from the National Domestic Violence hotline for Bella and Edward's relationship, and finds 15 signs that their relationship is abusive. Fifteen! I have only read articles about the books and movies, not read the books or seen the movies myself, so I am frankly surprised to hear that Edward throws Bella through a glass table. But even the other signs, like repeated statements of jealousy, abandoning her in a dangerous place, threatening suicide. . . This is supposed to be romantic? Religious groups can't possibly approve of these books, abstinence message or no.

Also: the view from a school librarian (and member of my Cambridge synagogue).

Baptists debate abstinence ... from alcohol

Apparently there's a debate within the various streams of Baptists about whether abstinence from alcohol is still a necessary part of their religion. The anti-abstinence say that alcohol abstinence is a historical remanent of the Temperance/Prohibition Movement 100 years ago and the pro-abstinence say that it's important to draw a firm line so that no one is tempted to get drunk.

I wonder whether they'll be having a similar debate in 100 years about some aspects of sexual abstinence. That's kind-of a naive question.

Early marriage reactions

Dallas TV news story giving reactions to early marriage idea, especially concern that they are pushing women away from education and towards early motherhood. Orthodox Jews have been promoting early marriage for a long time, and anecdotally I know that plenty of Orthodox Jewish women who marry young do go to medical school or other career pursuits they were planning on anyhow. It would be an interesting study to see whether marriage deters any from as extensive a career. My anecdotal impression is that married women get degrees from impressive schools but may be less likely or less interested in reaching the tiptop of their careers. So they will become a psychiatrist or internist or pediatrician with an MD from a top school, but may not become a neurosurgeon or med school professor.

Sociologist suggests lowering age of marriage

Mark Regnerus, one of the world experts on the sexual behavior of Evangelical Christians, wrote a long article in Christianity Today that states a few important facts.

1. Evangelicals are only slightly more sexually conservative than other Americans: about 80% have premarital sex by his estimate, and other estimates have higher numbers.

2. On average, like most Americans, Evangelicals have increased their average age at first marriage by 5 years, which goes along with a change in the view of marriage. As Regnerus puts it, "Most young Americans no longer think of marriage as a formative institution, but rather as the institution they enter once they think they are fully formed."

3. Women who want to get married have trouble finding men because 60% of evangelical young people are female: 3 women for 2 men.

My addition: recent research from Journal of Evolutionary Psychology indicates that a favorable male:female ratio alone may cause men to dally in making commitment to marriage, as is predictable.


The implications of these facts are not straight-forward because there's little good research on the subject of age of marriage, so conclusions are necessarily speculative. His conclusion is that people should get married earlier. My conclusions are that marriage age among evangelicals will probably stay high until there is an equal gender ratio, but there's unlikely to be an equal gender ratio because across societies women are in general more interested in religion than men, so pronouncements about what should happen aren't useful.

Just stating these facts may help to reframe the abstinence discussion.

Abstinent for a year

Another book in the genre of people chronicling a year in which they do something unusual. This book is about being abstinent for a year Chastened: No More Sex In The City by Hephzibah Anderson. According to the review:

Perhaps underpinning many of her own attitudes, Anderson writes authoritatively on 1990s ladette culture, that terrible, capricious period which spawned a sub-species of women for whom boozing, brawling and trawling for men was worn as a badge of honour (I can say that, I was one too). "We may have been sexually empowered, but we were also emotionally frustrated," she reflects. Her contemplation of the disempowerment of romantic courtship which has stemmed from technological advancement also rings disconcertingly true. "As if sitting by the phone weren't bad enough, now we had to take the phone with us and hear its silence in cafes and bars," she writes.

Its conclusion is "Chastity belongs back in the mainstream as a valid form of sexual expression."

Life Values and Intimacy Education

I just finished reading
a paper about the new sex education curriculum sponsored by the Jewish Orthodox rabbinical seminary at Yeshiva University and was really impressed.

It's truly comprehensive: it goes from elementary school through 12th grade, follows the sex education guidelines of SIECUS (an advocacy group that is unfortunately dismissed by the evangelicals as a fringe liberal group), and teaches the students about masturbation, condoms, and that they're not allowed to touch or be alone with the opposite sex: really abstinence-plus. And they teach 11th graders about sexual ethics based on the Talmudic story of the yeshiva student who visits a prostitute.

I haven't seen the curriculum beyond this paper, but what I've seen is fantastic. (As when I look at evangelical books, I overlook the wording issues that seem overly normative.) I'm sure once I see the whole thing I will have a more mixed opinion.

My favorite part is the list of questions to ask about people you're dating:

1. Do I treat the other person as a person or a thing? If you go out
with him/her because he/she is good looking (a “prize” to be
with) or a way out (a ticket to the movies), that isn’t love.
2. Would you choose to spend the evening alone with him/her if
there were no kissing, no touching, and no sex? If not, it isn’t
love.
3. Are the two of you at ease and as happy alone as you are with
friends? If you need other friends around to have a good time,
it isn’t love.
4. Do you get along? If you fight and make up a lot, get hurt and
jealous, tease and criticize one another, better be careful, it may
not be love.
5. Are you still interested in dating or secretly “messing around”
with others? If so, you aren’t in love.
6. Can you be totally honest and open? If either or both of you are
selfish, insincere, feel confined, or unable to express feelings,
be cautious.
7. Are you realistic? You should be able to admit possible future
problems. If others (besides a parent) offend you by saying
they are surprised you are still together, that you two seem so
different, that they have doubts about your choice, better take
a good look at this relationship.
8. Is either of you much more of a taker than a giver? If so, no
matter how well you like that situation now, it may not last.
9. Do you think of the partner as being a part of your whole life? If
so, and these dreams seem good, that is an indication of love.

Abstinence on prime time

Abstinence has made prime time a few times lately:

1. ABC's the Goode Family. Pilot episode: Daughter of liberal vegans thinks of taking a purity pledge. Even though everyone in the family agrees with the sentiment, they are completely wigged out by the trappings, such as the purity ball, purity ring given by father, etc., the fact that it's held in a church and done by primarily religious people. The father is an academic administrator and says he can't be seen in a church or he risks credibility at work.

Perhaps the most insightful message I've seen on abstinence in entertainment: everyone agrees on abstinence, but disagrees on style and how to talk about it: abstinence-only or abstinence-plus. Ultimately I wouldn't be surprised if the inclination to favor "abstinence only" or "plus" were one of the hard-wired political issues that the neuro- political science folks are picking up on brain scans. Teaching birth control feels wrong. So you end up with political stances like Sarah Palin's as governor being in favor of "Abstinence only" that of course teaches birth control. Just can't say the words "comprehensive" or even "abstinence plus" because those evoke the extremes. (Not to pick on conservatives. The opposite also holds: some start to think about the Taliban and "she was asking for it" rape when the issue of modest dress comes up, even if it's minimal standards that everyone adheres to in professional settings without thinking about. As soon as it's called "modesty" instead of "professionalism," the hard-wired instinct kicks in.)

The show is terrific otherwise as well. My favorite non-abstinence part was a fictional animal rights group called "Animals or Else!"

2. Little Mosque on the Prairie had an episode where the fiance of a woman who wears a hijab (headscarf) asks to see his fiancee's hair, but they decide to wait until marriage for him to see her hair. Very little tension throughout this non-touching relationship, but it's a sitcom with only 22 minutes to an episode, and that's not their focus so they don't have to be realistic. Still neat to see the prism of abstinence from a slightly different perspective. I wonder how many viewers without a cultural background that involves hair-covering have an intuitive feeling about this issue. How many think that it's no big deal to show her hair, versus how many feel shocked at the thought.

3. The Jonas Brothers on South Park: "Purity rings are how we sell sex to little girls."

An outrageous thought, and yet the qualitative research finds that until adolescents can conceive of physical intimacy, they have no conception of abstinence, so both abstinence and sex are foreign thoughts to their mind. Telling pre-sexual teens about abstinence is as much of a foreign idea as telling them about sex. Presumably the same holds for telling them about abstaining from drugs or alcohol before they are in a social world in which people take drugs or alcohol.

My neighbor taped it for me , but I haven't gotten down to watch it with him and only saw the 2 minute clip on youtube, so I don't know what else it has.

Abstinence makes your brain stronger

"Abstinence Makes the Brain Grow Stronger" read the headline, but it turned out they were talking about abstinence from alcohol during adolescence.