Andrew Gelman has an interesting point in a blog entry about religious commitment devices, such as a WWJD bracelet. He says that the bracelet is not a treatment, but rather it goes along with a set of behaviors and commitments, and it's a sign of that. This issue of commitment devices applies as well to my virginity pledge work: like the WWJD bracelent, the pledge may not be an intervention, but rather it could be a sign that someone has a certain identity, so the pledge itself isn't important.
Conversely, Gelman's argument could be critiqued on the grounds that there are folks who have the set of attitudes and behaviors, some of whom have the bracelet and others of them who don't, and conceivably, it would be possible to balance the two groups and get a treatment effect. Whether the treatment effect of wearing a WWJD bracelet could possibly be meaningful is a good question.
More thought needed.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Something we can all agree on: not sexualizing little girls
USC researchers have released a report on the role of women and girls on children's TV. The research finds that females are underrepresented, portrayed as primarily interested in appearance and romance, and that characters are sexualized. I was shocked to see how two children's TV characters were made over as sexualized. Both characters were originally little girls. Now they look older, thinner, show more skin, and Rainbow Brite especially looks like jail bait.
The right and left wings of the sex education debate don't agree on much, but they do agree that reducing women and girls to sexual and romantic roles is distasteful and inappropriate. I hope that all can find some constructive action to counter these disturbing trends.
The right and left wings of the sex education debate don't agree on much, but they do agree that reducing women and girls to sexual and romantic roles is distasteful and inappropriate. I hope that all can find some constructive action to counter these disturbing trends.
Friday, January 8, 2010
The 5 year pregnancy and other religious methods of dealing with deviance
One of the recurrent issues with religious restrictions on sexuality is how to deal with sexual transgressions. If a married woman's husband away has been away for 12 months, and she gives birth, how does a religion address this? The rabbis of the Talmud 1500 years ago declared that the length of pregnancy was 9 months, but birth can sometimes be delayed by 3 months, resulting in a 12 month pregnancy (Yevamot 80b). Apparently Muslim authorities made similar declarations, saying that a pregnancy can last 2, 4, or even 5 years. Likewise, I've heard of writings that a first pregnancy can be only 3 months long and yield a full-grown baby.
The source in the linked article is decrying this unscientific thinking, but it seems like the best alternative in a religious society that denies a high prevalance of transgression. Everyone knows that pregnancies are 9 months long (+/-), and much less than this will result in a small infant and much more than this is impossible, but declaring that reality fits the moral order rather than admitting the frequency of immorality is definitely more humane than calling people out on transgressions and treating them poorly. Which the editorialist seems interested in doing:
Obviously the best option is to recognize that it's normal for healthy people to have sex, sometimes when it's against their religion's rules, and to provide a structure so that the best outcomes can prevail: sex ed, contraception, reasonable expectations. When that's not an option, a 5 year pregnancy seems like a great alternative.
The source in the linked article is decrying this unscientific thinking, but it seems like the best alternative in a religious society that denies a high prevalance of transgression. Everyone knows that pregnancies are 9 months long (+/-), and much less than this will result in a small infant and much more than this is impossible, but declaring that reality fits the moral order rather than admitting the frequency of immorality is definitely more humane than calling people out on transgressions and treating them poorly. Which the editorialist seems interested in doing:
from a moral perspective, how can I provide a jurisprudential loophole for a woman who was probably promiscuous after the death of her husband and then presented her baby, conceived in sin, as a baby of her dead husband by relying on the [notion] of a hidden pregnancy or on a fatwa issued by some [cleric] or religious school? This is what happened on December 14, 1927 at a shari'a court in Mecca. The qadi... ruled that the baby was conceived by the woman's dead husband who had died five years previously.
Obviously the best option is to recognize that it's normal for healthy people to have sex, sometimes when it's against their religion's rules, and to provide a structure so that the best outcomes can prevail: sex ed, contraception, reasonable expectations. When that's not an option, a 5 year pregnancy seems like a great alternative.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Virginity misconceptions
RH Reality Check has an interview with Jessica Valenti about the role of virginity in society. The cultural criticism part of the interview addresses a complex reality with many layers, but addressing some simple facts I think she may misunderstand the evidence to some degree:
1. The social science says that sexual initiation is important, both the age and circumstances. The age of sexual initiation is associated with concrete negative health outcomes, such as increased likelihood of STDs, pregnancy, less likelihood of using condom even in subsequent relationships. In many cases women, disproportionately African-American, have early sexual initiation within coercive relationships, often with men over 18.
2. Girls and women are more vulnerable than men in many sexual contexts: getting a woman pregnant can cause financial hardship to men, but women have more immediate consequences and educational/advancement consequences. Transmission rates of STDs to women are higher than to men for many diseases. While men are more likely to have symptoms of chlamydia and gonorrhea, these diseases are more likely to have lasting consequences for women than for men, the combination of which means that a woman might have lasting consequences without ever knowing. Intimate partner violence (IPV) is more common and more severe for women than for men.
As a female statistician who was a physics major in college, I know about sexism. On the other hand, there are some gender differences that are real. I also supported Larry Summers in that debacle.
3. My impression is that virginity is a concept that Evangelical Christianity applies to both men and women, and is concerned with both equally. That's not as much my area, but it's been my impression.
1. The social science says that sexual initiation is important, both the age and circumstances. The age of sexual initiation is associated with concrete negative health outcomes, such as increased likelihood of STDs, pregnancy, less likelihood of using condom even in subsequent relationships. In many cases women, disproportionately African-American, have early sexual initiation within coercive relationships, often with men over 18.
2. Girls and women are more vulnerable than men in many sexual contexts: getting a woman pregnant can cause financial hardship to men, but women have more immediate consequences and educational/advancement consequences. Transmission rates of STDs to women are higher than to men for many diseases. While men are more likely to have symptoms of chlamydia and gonorrhea, these diseases are more likely to have lasting consequences for women than for men, the combination of which means that a woman might have lasting consequences without ever knowing. Intimate partner violence (IPV) is more common and more severe for women than for men.
As a female statistician who was a physics major in college, I know about sexism. On the other hand, there are some gender differences that are real. I also supported Larry Summers in that debacle.
3. My impression is that virginity is a concept that Evangelical Christianity applies to both men and women, and is concerned with both equally. That's not as much my area, but it's been my impression.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Evangelical Christianity and self-selection
Evangelical Christians have the goal that everyone within their fold adhere to norms such as abstinence from premarital sex. Clergy and active congregants adhere to the norms most of the time, but many evangelical teens have sex lives only slightly more conservative than the average American or European teenager. I've long wondered whether the reason for this discrepancy is that evangelical Christianity includes many people who, for whatever reason, are unlikely to adhere to all the norms.
Comparing religions can only be done in the spirit of "All models are wrong, but some are useful", so with that in mind I thought about religious self-selection in the context of some youtube videos making their way around some progressive Jewish blogs with enthusiasm and modern Orthodox blogs with hesitant, tepid approval, apparently spurred by an article in the Forward, a US Jewish newspaper.
This is a fantastic video of a secular Israeli girl band called "Woman of Valor" (Prov. 31) singing "Open our eyes to your Torah, cause us to cleave to your commandments, and unite our hearts in love and awe of your name" a line from the liturgy repeated over and over*. They also sing "On the rivers of Babylon" (Psalm 137) and "The angel who saved me" (Genesis 48). In the US, I would guess that this would be fairly standard evangelical Christian popular music, but in Israel it is Tel Aviv secular, performed at the Gay Pride parade, and so extremely exciting and outrageous**.
If the evangelicals are including the equivalent of the Tel Aviv secular who obviously connect to some aspect of the Bible and yet for whatever reason are not interested in some of the religious norms, programs like virginity pledges may reach only the Jerusalem religious who would abstain anyhow.
-------
(*) It begins "That we shouldn't ever be bashful or ashamed or stumble." There's also a rap segment in the middle that isn't a text also about connecting with the divine.
(**) Comments on the video are outraged. My translation of some of them:
- If they really believed what they sung, they would dress differently and they wouldn't dance like that and they would seem even slightly like daughters of Israel. G-d should have mercy on us, what a desecration of G-d's name.
- When someone sings to open our eyes to your Torah and be caused to cleave to your commandments when she is, pardon me, half naked is really not respectful. It's like going to the synagogue to pray in a bathing suit. Does that seem right? It's like the Maimonides's example of going into a ritual bath holding an impure reptile, doing something good but in an improper manner.
- I don't understand the connection between the meaning of the text and the clothing. They say they want to be open to G-d's commandments and they are not fully dressed.
Comparing religions can only be done in the spirit of "All models are wrong, but some are useful", so with that in mind I thought about religious self-selection in the context of some youtube videos making their way around some progressive Jewish blogs with enthusiasm and modern Orthodox blogs with hesitant, tepid approval, apparently spurred by an article in the Forward, a US Jewish newspaper.
This is a fantastic video of a secular Israeli girl band called "Woman of Valor" (Prov. 31) singing "Open our eyes to your Torah, cause us to cleave to your commandments, and unite our hearts in love and awe of your name" a line from the liturgy repeated over and over*. They also sing "On the rivers of Babylon" (Psalm 137) and "The angel who saved me" (Genesis 48). In the US, I would guess that this would be fairly standard evangelical Christian popular music, but in Israel it is Tel Aviv secular, performed at the Gay Pride parade, and so extremely exciting and outrageous**.
If the evangelicals are including the equivalent of the Tel Aviv secular who obviously connect to some aspect of the Bible and yet for whatever reason are not interested in some of the religious norms, programs like virginity pledges may reach only the Jerusalem religious who would abstain anyhow.
-------
(*) It begins "That we shouldn't ever be bashful or ashamed or stumble." There's also a rap segment in the middle that isn't a text also about connecting with the divine.
(**) Comments on the video are outraged. My translation of some of them:
- If they really believed what they sung, they would dress differently and they wouldn't dance like that and they would seem even slightly like daughters of Israel. G-d should have mercy on us, what a desecration of G-d's name.
- When someone sings to open our eyes to your Torah and be caused to cleave to your commandments when she is, pardon me, half naked is really not respectful. It's like going to the synagogue to pray in a bathing suit. Does that seem right? It's like the Maimonides's example of going into a ritual bath holding an impure reptile, doing something good but in an improper manner.
- I don't understand the connection between the meaning of the text and the clothing. They say they want to be open to G-d's commandments and they are not fully dressed.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
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:
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.
Monday, June 8, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
"Imagine no religion" campaign
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has a new billboard campaign asking viewers to imagine no religion. They erected one billboard in the town with the headquarters of Focus on the Family, which I do find kind-of funny. Though funny in the same way that I find the abstinence billboards in neighborhoods with high teen birth rates.
The campaign has encouraged umpteen editorials with the standard secularist messianic thinking: fewer wars, no terrorism, no abstinence-only education, more title V family planning funding.
How about "Imagine No Extremists"? Not only would pragmatic compromise become easier, but perhaps there wouldn't be evangelical atheists and their billboards either.
The campaign has encouraged umpteen editorials with the standard secularist messianic thinking: fewer wars, no terrorism, no abstinence-only education, more title V family planning funding.
How about "Imagine No Extremists"? Not only would pragmatic compromise become easier, but perhaps there wouldn't be evangelical atheists and their billboards either.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Why faith-based marathon training might delay teen sex
I was half-joking in my previous post when I said that marathon training might delay teen sex more than abstinence programs. Of course, that would not hard to do because the definitive study of abstinence programs finds they don't delay teen sex at all.
Marathons fit in with the question of how people who don't intend to run marathons admire those who do, and I wasn't thinking about it as a potential intervention. The reason marathon training might delay teen sex is that the studies by the National Campaign to Reduce Teen Pregnancy show that comprehensive lifestyle programs are the most effective programs of all: these are the programs which involve the adolescents in some kind of activity, improve support systems, and take a lot of time.
The half-joking reasons why marathon training might delay teen sex are that they will be too tired and scheduled to find a partner and find time alone with the partner. But in the ideal case, first, it could create a close-knit and supportive group that meets regularly for long periods of time, so the group will reinforce its norms more strongly than a more loose group. Second, setting a high goal and working towards it may raise participants' self-efficacy, the confidence that they can accomplish their goals in general. Self-efficacy may be particularly important in the case of religious teens that have sex even though they think they shouldn't. Third, working towards a big goal may make that goal more salient in their minds, and may make sex slightly less salient. The endorphins wouldn't hurt. Plus, as one commenter said, maybe it would delay puberty, though I'm not sure if marathon training is safe so young.
This is assuming the maximal best case where all of the participants are super into the idea. Obviously in the real world, most would drop out, and only the most risk-seeking kids would stay in the program so it would be hard to find the right control group to test whether it works.
Casual team sports take up some time, but might not have enough intensity to raise participants' self-efficacy.
Marathons fit in with the question of how people who don't intend to run marathons admire those who do, and I wasn't thinking about it as a potential intervention. The reason marathon training might delay teen sex is that the studies by the National Campaign to Reduce Teen Pregnancy show that comprehensive lifestyle programs are the most effective programs of all: these are the programs which involve the adolescents in some kind of activity, improve support systems, and take a lot of time.
The half-joking reasons why marathon training might delay teen sex are that they will be too tired and scheduled to find a partner and find time alone with the partner. But in the ideal case, first, it could create a close-knit and supportive group that meets regularly for long periods of time, so the group will reinforce its norms more strongly than a more loose group. Second, setting a high goal and working towards it may raise participants' self-efficacy, the confidence that they can accomplish their goals in general. Self-efficacy may be particularly important in the case of religious teens that have sex even though they think they shouldn't. Third, working towards a big goal may make that goal more salient in their minds, and may make sex slightly less salient. The endorphins wouldn't hurt. Plus, as one commenter said, maybe it would delay puberty, though I'm not sure if marathon training is safe so young.
This is assuming the maximal best case where all of the participants are super into the idea. Obviously in the real world, most would drop out, and only the most risk-seeking kids would stay in the program so it would be hard to find the right control group to test whether it works.
Casual team sports take up some time, but might not have enough intensity to raise participants' self-efficacy.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Dating as casual sex
An interesting piece in Salon purports to be ``In defense of casual sex.'' In fact, it is a defense of dating widely, the old-fashioned form of dating. For instance, this book advocates that its evangelical audience should date as many people as possible, even people they would never picture themselves marrying such as the secular, in order to learn about themselves and their relationships.
The only difference between the Salon author's dating and the old-fashioned version is how the date ends.
The Salon author acknowledges both versions of dating as valid, but thinks that people should be able to choose which path they take. She says that the abstinence movement "prescribes a particular path, rather than encouraging young women to blaze their own trail." which is a weird criticism of a conservative religious movement, which by its nature prescribes and proscribes. That's its job. Congregants can choose whether to listen --- as in the case of Catholics and birth control --- but a conservative religious movement by its very nature would never endorse fully open choice about anything.
Her premise that the abstinence movement is a unitary entity with a single path is also wrong, just as conservative religious movements' sweeping criticisms of "secular culture" as if it were a single entity. Our culture is just so divided that the two sides aren't aware of each other.
A sociologist studying dating among evangelical Christian young adults could probably find half a dozen legitimized paths towards marriage, ranging from courtship to wide dating with some sexual involvement. More importantly, they would also find another half a dozen of actual paths that people take, and I'm sure some are similar to the Salon author's path. Sexually active conservative Christians have had a handful of sexual partners by the time they finish college, and the handful of conservative Christian dating books that I've read all acknowledge that. I've seen none that speak of using sex as a carrot, though I don't deny they exist; they do speak of setting sexual boundaries as an exercise that will help in maintaining a marriage.
There's very little new to be said about dating and relationships, and much shared ground, as people would know if they would talk to each other. After acknowledging the shared ground, they can talk about the differences. The conservative authors already acknowledge that they are putting young adults in a difficult position, and that many young adults don't hold to the ideal. In this theoretical conversation, the parties could talk about whether more partners or more intimate relationships are better for developing one's sexuality, whether sex takes up time that might be better spent on more varied activities that would reveal more about the relationship, and whether making sex transgressive even though most conservative Christians have premarital sex causes problems.
Ironically, the author's ending is quite conservative, as she ends the article telling how she met her significant other. First-date-sex aside, she lives happily ever after in a monogamous mutually respectful relationship, just as the evangelical dating books want their readers to.
The only difference between the Salon author's dating and the old-fashioned version is how the date ends.
The Salon author acknowledges both versions of dating as valid, but thinks that people should be able to choose which path they take. She says that the abstinence movement "prescribes a particular path, rather than encouraging young women to blaze their own trail." which is a weird criticism of a conservative religious movement, which by its nature prescribes and proscribes. That's its job. Congregants can choose whether to listen --- as in the case of Catholics and birth control --- but a conservative religious movement by its very nature would never endorse fully open choice about anything.
Her premise that the abstinence movement is a unitary entity with a single path is also wrong, just as conservative religious movements' sweeping criticisms of "secular culture" as if it were a single entity. Our culture is just so divided that the two sides aren't aware of each other.
A sociologist studying dating among evangelical Christian young adults could probably find half a dozen legitimized paths towards marriage, ranging from courtship to wide dating with some sexual involvement. More importantly, they would also find another half a dozen of actual paths that people take, and I'm sure some are similar to the Salon author's path. Sexually active conservative Christians have had a handful of sexual partners by the time they finish college, and the handful of conservative Christian dating books that I've read all acknowledge that. I've seen none that speak of using sex as a carrot, though I don't deny they exist; they do speak of setting sexual boundaries as an exercise that will help in maintaining a marriage.
There's very little new to be said about dating and relationships, and much shared ground, as people would know if they would talk to each other. After acknowledging the shared ground, they can talk about the differences. The conservative authors already acknowledge that they are putting young adults in a difficult position, and that many young adults don't hold to the ideal. In this theoretical conversation, the parties could talk about whether more partners or more intimate relationships are better for developing one's sexuality, whether sex takes up time that might be better spent on more varied activities that would reveal more about the relationship, and whether making sex transgressive even though most conservative Christians have premarital sex causes problems.
Ironically, the author's ending is quite conservative, as she ends the article telling how she met her significant other. First-date-sex aside, she lives happily ever after in a monogamous mutually respectful relationship, just as the evangelical dating books want their readers to.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Australian abstinence-only controversy: separation of church and state
The abstinence-only sex education (AOSE) movement was started under the early Reagan administration after prompting by the newly-energized Christian right, and expanded as different churches created curricula, most notably the Southern Baptist Conference's True Love Waits program in the early 1990s. AOSE has never, as far as I'm aware, been promoted in a purely secular context, but secular curricula have been written by organizations which are either religious or run by evangelical Christians. The curriculum I'm most aware of is the Catholic church's Pure Love program, which has both secular and religious versions of their virginity pledge.
Apparently, the same is true in Australia --- a pro-abstinence (though not abstinence-only, it sounds like) curriculum originally written by Presbyterian and Baptist churches is taught in some schools, and a member of Parliament is protesting that because the curriculum is more conservative than the beliefs of most Australians (80% of whom approve of abortion choice) and violates requirements that school instruction be secular.
I'm sympathetic to that position, but to play devil's advocate for a moment: is there any such thing as a secular sex ed curriculum? For every sex ed curriculum, there's some religion which would agree with it as their own view. Even a curriculum which says, "Some people believe abstinence before marriage and others believe in saving sex for a relationship with someone you love, but you should make your own decision." is the position of some religion, I would guess UCC and UU have a statement like that in their curricula, for instance.
Something that I would like to see is a source reader with excerpts of essays from a range of religious perspectives: mainline, evangelical, Catholicism, Islam, Judaism. It's a bit meta, but that's what public education is: you learn the positions of religions X, Y and Z on sex, without much discussion about how it applies to life. To prevent it from being too meta, there could be an assignment where adolescents discuss the material with their parents and find out what their parents believe. That's the closest thing you can get to a truly secular curriculum, in my opinion.
It's also much more sophisticated than the standard sex ed books which are written at a middle school grade level even for what's taught in high school. I'm sure that a college level reader like this must exist, though cursory look I haven't found one.
If there were one, what should be in it?
- The theology of the body essays
- Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits's 1976 essay on sexual ethics (in _Essential Essays on Judaism_)
- If it will go into abortion: selections from the Talmud and Maimonides on when abortion is justified. If I recall correctly there are similar in the (Muslim) hadiths, and they reach similar conclusions.
-
What is the most prominent evangelical writings on sexual decision making? I'm only aware of the popular ones (Lauren Winner, Josh Harris, John Townsend, Doug Rosenau and Michael Wilson).
Other recommendations? Anything good in First Things published lately? What are the leading Muslim essays on the subject? Anything by Eastern Orthodox figures?
What are the more left-wing intellectual essays on sexual ethics? Most of the ones I'm aware of, even by e.g., R Eugene Borowitz the preeminent philosopher in Reform Judaism, are relatively conservative, which makes sense because what leads someone to write on a topic is disagreeing with the prevalent practice in the culture.
To be continued . . .
Apparently, the same is true in Australia --- a pro-abstinence (though not abstinence-only, it sounds like) curriculum originally written by Presbyterian and Baptist churches is taught in some schools, and a member of Parliament is protesting that because the curriculum is more conservative than the beliefs of most Australians (80% of whom approve of abortion choice) and violates requirements that school instruction be secular.
I'm sympathetic to that position, but to play devil's advocate for a moment: is there any such thing as a secular sex ed curriculum? For every sex ed curriculum, there's some religion which would agree with it as their own view. Even a curriculum which says, "Some people believe abstinence before marriage and others believe in saving sex for a relationship with someone you love, but you should make your own decision." is the position of some religion, I would guess UCC and UU have a statement like that in their curricula, for instance.
Something that I would like to see is a source reader with excerpts of essays from a range of religious perspectives: mainline, evangelical, Catholicism, Islam, Judaism. It's a bit meta, but that's what public education is: you learn the positions of religions X, Y and Z on sex, without much discussion about how it applies to life. To prevent it from being too meta, there could be an assignment where adolescents discuss the material with their parents and find out what their parents believe. That's the closest thing you can get to a truly secular curriculum, in my opinion.
It's also much more sophisticated than the standard sex ed books which are written at a middle school grade level even for what's taught in high school. I'm sure that a college level reader like this must exist, though cursory look I haven't found one.
If there were one, what should be in it?
- The theology of the body essays
- Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits's 1976 essay on sexual ethics (in _Essential Essays on Judaism_)
- If it will go into abortion: selections from the Talmud and Maimonides on when abortion is justified. If I recall correctly there are similar in the (Muslim) hadiths, and they reach similar conclusions.
-
What is the most prominent evangelical writings on sexual decision making? I'm only aware of the popular ones (Lauren Winner, Josh Harris, John Townsend, Doug Rosenau and Michael Wilson).
Other recommendations? Anything good in First Things published lately? What are the leading Muslim essays on the subject? Anything by Eastern Orthodox figures?
What are the more left-wing intellectual essays on sexual ethics? Most of the ones I'm aware of, even by e.g., R Eugene Borowitz the preeminent philosopher in Reform Judaism, are relatively conservative, which makes sense because what leads someone to write on a topic is disagreeing with the prevalent practice in the culture.
To be continued . . .
Monday, July 28, 2008
A Catholic Church contraception counterfactual
An op ed from a former Catholic priest on Pope Paul VI's anti-birth control encyclical 40 years ago, and how it might have been different:
I've never known very much about Catholicism, so I've never thought that the pope's decision on contraception could have been any different from how it was. Many religions have confronted issues of modernity, especially sexual, with barriers rather than moderation. The possibility that the Catholic response could have been more moderate raises the question of whether the American political landscape and even other religions' stances might have also been more nuanced.
On the other hand, an issue that the author does not consider is that as a religious policy issue, people are generally not very good at moderation. Moderation can be interpreted as outright acceptance.
So on one hand, the religious authorities can decide to maintain credibility by proclaiming a moderate position, but risking that the public would be too liberal with the position. Or the religious authorities can risk losing credibility with the public by proclaiming a clear-cut ban. If the religion's major objective is to ensure that people follow the law, is it possible that there might be more compliance in the first scenario? As much as I would like to say that there would be more compliance under a liberal stance, I don't have any information that would lead me to conclude one way or the other. Obviously the solution is that in cases where the religious authorities just want a specific outcome, they should conduct randomized policy experiments before they decide on religious law. It's a pipedream, I know, but I'm mostly serious. Many religious decisions turn on predicting outcomes that are unknowable without formal study.
In traditional Catholic morality, the nature of a human act, the intention and the circumstances must be all considered in weighing its rightness or wrongness.
But as Pope Paul presented his case, intention and circumstances are irrelevant. The nature of contraception is so heinous, so intrinsically evil that alleviating circumstance and good intention don't count.
We can all acknowledge that contraception is on a different level from, say, killing a human being. Yet killing is an act that may not be determined good or bad until we know intention and circumstances. The placing of absolute judgment on contraception itself—by pill, condom or whatever—raises the bar to a level that seems to many responsible and thoughtful people to be irresponsible.
Killing is not always wrong. But contraception always is?
...
The problem with Humanae Vitae is rigidity. The pontiff was correct in seeing what strange fruits the revolution would produce, but his cure was as bad or worse than the disease.
He could have acted differently. He could have said that the world is facing an unprecedented challenge in human history that requires careful study and expert inquiry. He could have said that selfish, non-generative lifestyles are not acceptable, that thoughtless contraception cheapens sex, that circumstances count very much and that people have an obligation to weigh carefully what they do.
He could even have praised the values of natural family planning. He could have become a respected conversant among national and world bodies seeking credible answers. But because of the absolute ban, popes, bishops and theologians have had little to offer except a repeated no, no, never!
Church leadership left the table 40 years ago, painting itself into this corner.
Within the church itself the saddest byproduct is what has been happening to its membership. Many parents of the 1960s retained an overall confidence in the church while dissenting on the contraception issue. Their children widened the sense of separation, and the grandchildren may not even realize there ever was a religious institution that had wisdom and a sense of real community to share.
I've never known very much about Catholicism, so I've never thought that the pope's decision on contraception could have been any different from how it was. Many religions have confronted issues of modernity, especially sexual, with barriers rather than moderation. The possibility that the Catholic response could have been more moderate raises the question of whether the American political landscape and even other religions' stances might have also been more nuanced.
On the other hand, an issue that the author does not consider is that as a religious policy issue, people are generally not very good at moderation. Moderation can be interpreted as outright acceptance.
So on one hand, the religious authorities can decide to maintain credibility by proclaiming a moderate position, but risking that the public would be too liberal with the position. Or the religious authorities can risk losing credibility with the public by proclaiming a clear-cut ban. If the religion's major objective is to ensure that people follow the law, is it possible that there might be more compliance in the first scenario? As much as I would like to say that there would be more compliance under a liberal stance, I don't have any information that would lead me to conclude one way or the other. Obviously the solution is that in cases where the religious authorities just want a specific outcome, they should conduct randomized policy experiments before they decide on religious law. It's a pipedream, I know, but I'm mostly serious. Many religious decisions turn on predicting outcomes that are unknowable without formal study.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Righteous adolescents
The current generation of adolescents has a strong tie with religion: the vast majority attend church, believe in God, and many are religiously engaged. Christian popular culture is a non-cynical mirror-image of mainstream popular culture: the well-known ascendancy of Christian rock bands into the mainstream, and the skater, surfer, hipster, and bling-heavy Republican hip-hop ministries. Lauren Sandler explores the Christian subcultures in Righteous: Dispatches from the Evangelical Youth Movement. Adolescents and young adults join these movements in search of "authenticity," a word which recurs in each of the ministries' self-descriptions.
Some adolescents seem to join these communities in search of love. The book opens with an anecdote of a high school student who seeks the love of Jesus while attending a Christian rock concert to compensate for a love she lost in a break-up. I find it interesting that religious love articulated by religious music replaced her failed romantic love. Since popular culture idealizes romantic love and sex so much, it can remind the unpaired of break-ups, loves lost and unrequited. Christian rock doesn't talk about romantic love, but has similar aesthetic qualities, so it must be refreshing to adolescents to experience music which does not reinforce their loneliness and romantic insecurities.
Young adults seem to join Christian communities not only because of the community that they offer, but because the communities allow them to maintain superficial contact with their Goth, rocker, tattooed subcultures after swearing allegiance to the church's social conservatism. The particular church that she profiles, Mars Hill in Seattle, is attached to a nightclub which uses its hosting of secular acts to attract new members. Once in, church members don't just signal their commitment to their church's vision of traditional families, they actually have to attest that they agree with it; in this church, women quit jobs to become home-schooling mothers and yield decision-making authority to their husbands. The high admission price of membership brings benefits, consonant with Eli Berman's theory (and perhaps the theory goes back before him) that the amount of mutual aid available within communities is directly proportional to their admission price. She tells of a mega-church member whose friends built him a backyard fence because he couldn't afford to hire workers.
Other ministries are entirely away from churches, such as in skating parks. Skateboarders in a van purchased on ebay for $700 travel to small, economically depressed towns and put on a combination skating/music show, which starts out secular and gradually increases the Christian content. The explicitly Christian portion of the show starts with an apology for the "jackasses" that attempt to spread the word of God, and ends with a group prayer which brings some audience members to tears. A more slick, professionally-produced show does the stereotypical altar call, passing out commitment cards, and counting the number of cards they receive, not unlike virginity pledge cards.
Sandler calls for secular culture to offer meaning, but she never presents an alternative paradigm other than rationalism. Rationalism is great for science, but it is not going to cause tearful conversions. As steeped in rationalism and atheism as she describes herself, Sandler says explicitly that she was touched by the sincerity and emotion: while narrating her experiences with the $700 van skaters, she describes her unwillingness to convert as "not yet," and at an ecstatic two hour worship service breaks out in tears and briefly considers conversion. Nor will rationalism exact a sufficiently high admission price to inspire mutual aid; people only give aid to people who signal sufficient belonging in a community, so they can avoid free-riding.
Perhaps a more realistic alternative to secularism for adolescents are liberal evangelical Christian organizations such as Jay Bakker's church called "Revolution" and Relevant Magazine", which Sandler profiles briefly. Bakker's church not only has the badass façade of the hip socially conservative churches, such as meeting in bars and calling itself "a church for people who have given up on church," but also has liberal politics. The church embraces actively-identified gay members, and its motto is, "As Christians, we're sorry for being self-righteous judgmental bastards." Sandler quotes a lesbian health educator speaking in Bakker's church as saying that abstinence-only education does not work, and quotes Bakker as saying, "You should know that Christian kids are sleeping together.... People do drugs. People have sex. And I'm afraid if we don't live in the reality of the world, we're just losing the battle."
Sandler's sparkling language is sometimes marred by unfairly snarky comments, but many of her critiques seem fair.
The evangelical youth movement continues to grow without secular counter-pressure, and liberal churches such as Bakker's are rare. Social policy is often formulated by those without direct experience with religious subcultures. Any intervention for adolescents needs to account for the fact that a large proportion of them are evangelical Christians. While adolescents evangelical Christianity is aesthetically similar to mainstream popular culture, the message needs to account for their Christianity. Public health can fill the gap between the religious abstinence message and the reality that most religious adolescents have sex and many others engage in other risk behaviors.
Interventions can explicitly address the conflict between adolescents' hormones and their morals: the religious message says that they should choose their morals over their hormones, but judging from the proportion of religious Christians who have sex, this message is not efficacious. Teaching adolescents to think realistically about their sexual decisions, and to create a contingency plan to ensure that any sex is as safe as possible, is important for both their physical and emotional health. While the idea of such a contingency plan is seen by religious leaders as an unacceptable concession to secularism, many religious leaders also know that continual feelings of guilt and cognitive dissonance risk driving people away from religion altogether.
Some adolescents seem to join these communities in search of love. The book opens with an anecdote of a high school student who seeks the love of Jesus while attending a Christian rock concert to compensate for a love she lost in a break-up. I find it interesting that religious love articulated by religious music replaced her failed romantic love. Since popular culture idealizes romantic love and sex so much, it can remind the unpaired of break-ups, loves lost and unrequited. Christian rock doesn't talk about romantic love, but has similar aesthetic qualities, so it must be refreshing to adolescents to experience music which does not reinforce their loneliness and romantic insecurities.
Young adults seem to join Christian communities not only because of the community that they offer, but because the communities allow them to maintain superficial contact with their Goth, rocker, tattooed subcultures after swearing allegiance to the church's social conservatism. The particular church that she profiles, Mars Hill in Seattle, is attached to a nightclub which uses its hosting of secular acts to attract new members. Once in, church members don't just signal their commitment to their church's vision of traditional families, they actually have to attest that they agree with it; in this church, women quit jobs to become home-schooling mothers and yield decision-making authority to their husbands. The high admission price of membership brings benefits, consonant with Eli Berman's theory (and perhaps the theory goes back before him) that the amount of mutual aid available within communities is directly proportional to their admission price. She tells of a mega-church member whose friends built him a backyard fence because he couldn't afford to hire workers.
Other ministries are entirely away from churches, such as in skating parks. Skateboarders in a van purchased on ebay for $700 travel to small, economically depressed towns and put on a combination skating/music show, which starts out secular and gradually increases the Christian content. The explicitly Christian portion of the show starts with an apology for the "jackasses" that attempt to spread the word of God, and ends with a group prayer which brings some audience members to tears. A more slick, professionally-produced show does the stereotypical altar call, passing out commitment cards, and counting the number of cards they receive, not unlike virginity pledge cards.
Sandler calls for secular culture to offer meaning, but she never presents an alternative paradigm other than rationalism. Rationalism is great for science, but it is not going to cause tearful conversions. As steeped in rationalism and atheism as she describes herself, Sandler says explicitly that she was touched by the sincerity and emotion: while narrating her experiences with the $700 van skaters, she describes her unwillingness to convert as "not yet," and at an ecstatic two hour worship service breaks out in tears and briefly considers conversion. Nor will rationalism exact a sufficiently high admission price to inspire mutual aid; people only give aid to people who signal sufficient belonging in a community, so they can avoid free-riding.
Perhaps a more realistic alternative to secularism for adolescents are liberal evangelical Christian organizations such as Jay Bakker's church called "Revolution" and Relevant Magazine", which Sandler profiles briefly. Bakker's church not only has the badass façade of the hip socially conservative churches, such as meeting in bars and calling itself "a church for people who have given up on church," but also has liberal politics. The church embraces actively-identified gay members, and its motto is, "As Christians, we're sorry for being self-righteous judgmental bastards." Sandler quotes a lesbian health educator speaking in Bakker's church as saying that abstinence-only education does not work, and quotes Bakker as saying, "You should know that Christian kids are sleeping together.... People do drugs. People have sex. And I'm afraid if we don't live in the reality of the world, we're just losing the battle."
Sandler's sparkling language is sometimes marred by unfairly snarky comments, but many of her critiques seem fair.
The evangelical youth movement continues to grow without secular counter-pressure, and liberal churches such as Bakker's are rare. Social policy is often formulated by those without direct experience with religious subcultures. Any intervention for adolescents needs to account for the fact that a large proportion of them are evangelical Christians. While adolescents evangelical Christianity is aesthetically similar to mainstream popular culture, the message needs to account for their Christianity. Public health can fill the gap between the religious abstinence message and the reality that most religious adolescents have sex and many others engage in other risk behaviors.
Interventions can explicitly address the conflict between adolescents' hormones and their morals: the religious message says that they should choose their morals over their hormones, but judging from the proportion of religious Christians who have sex, this message is not efficacious. Teaching adolescents to think realistically about their sexual decisions, and to create a contingency plan to ensure that any sex is as safe as possible, is important for both their physical and emotional health. While the idea of such a contingency plan is seen by religious leaders as an unacceptable concession to secularism, many religious leaders also know that continual feelings of guilt and cognitive dissonance risk driving people away from religion altogether.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)