Matthew Yglesias (May 16, 2007) - Also: The Sky Is Blue (Miscellaneous)

Christian chastity has nothing to do with "hang ups" or prudery.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 16, 2007 2:23 PM

"It's simply true that the evangelical Christians who want gays back in the closet, who have their daughters sign virginity pledges, who push abstinence only sex education, etc., etc., etc. are sexually hung-up prudes."

Or rather, they come accross as being infused with (and trying to legislate for others) chastity and purity, but are often exposed as a bunch of delightfully hypocritical degenerates.

Posted by John I | May 16, 2007 2:33 PM

Christian chastity has nothing to do with "hang ups" or prudery.

Oh, of course not. It has to do with their earnest faith in Christian scripture, which happens to be hung up on prudish notions about human sexuality.

However, some uncharitable folks might notice the way that Christians pay virtually no attention to any other aspects of Hebrew ritual purity, fail to keep kosher, have long since abandoned animal sacrifice, welcome moneychangers into their temples with open arms, and seem to be more concerned about the "purity" of their daughters than their sons. And one might conclude that this selective adherence to scripture might stem from them being a bunch of prudes with sexual hang-ups.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 16, 2007 2:34 PM

Well Jeffery Davis is right, if inadvertently: the sexual politics of fundamentalists are more about patriarchy and the restoration of male privilege than mere prudery.

Posted by kth | May 16, 2007 2:35 PM

It might seem unfair of Matt to be so pithy about a whole movement, but what brings them out into the public sphere? Gays & abortion. It's not as if they're publicly agitating for other causes that might be called "Christian" or might be seen as enforcing Biblical prohibitions. They're not anti-war, or protesting torture, or yelling at Gonzalez for violating the Commandment about false witness.

Posted by American Citizen | May 16, 2007 2:42 PM

Christian chastity has nothing to do with "hang ups" or prudery.

In theory, you are correct. In practice, we get stuff like "Purity Balls."

Posted by Tyro | May 16, 2007 2:42 PM

Your analogy is terrible. Calling someone a "sexually hung-up prude" is obviously an insult, while saying someone "loathes pollution" is clearly not an insult.

One could say that politically active conservative evangelicals (the Christian Right) are "committed to increased government repression of human sexuality." Alternatively one could say that left-wing environmental groups are "hippie tree-huggers." See the difference.

Posted by Korha | May 16, 2007 2:43 PM

Christian chastity has nothing to do with "hang ups" or prudery.

Oh, be quiet, and go oppress some shrimp-eaters.

(Leviticus 11:9-11)

Posted by rea | May 16, 2007 2:43 PM

Oh yes, the press constantly calls evangelicals "prudes" or "sexually hung-up".

Except, of course, they don't do that. They just report what they say. Goldberg's example of this treatment was Falwell's obsession with Tinky-winky. Falwell sought to make that an issue. He made his opposition to the tele-tubies (sp? I don't care) an issue, and he based it on their implicit love of gay sex.

Now, lots of people read what these right-wing evangelicals say and think "wow, that seems prudish" or "man, they must have hang ups." Is that the media's fault? Personally, I would have loved it if the anti-war movement had gotten the kind of press Falwell gets. If the Washington Post had actually published some of the statements made by those Democrats in the Senate and House who voted against the war. That sort of thing.

Posted by MDtoMN | May 16, 2007 2:51 PM

Every goddamned holy roller man in the land would gladly give up one nut to be trapped in an elevator with a drunken Jessica Alba. If they protested otherwise they're lying through their teeth.

Posted by steve duncan | May 16, 2007 2:57 PM

fail to keep kosher

Well, Peter had this totally awesome dream about bacon, so that's all ok now.

Too bad he was hungry instead of horny when he had his dream. Christian doctrine might be very different.

Posted by Royko | May 16, 2007 2:59 PM

Every goddamned holy roller man in the land would gladly give up one nut to be trapped in an elevator with a drunken Jessica Alba.

She's probably a little too multi-racial for the comfort of your average fundy, but if you substituted, say, Jessica Simpson (their taste, not mine), you'd be exactly right. Whatever Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, and Ted Haggard are, 'prude' isn't the right word for it (and they aren't in the least unrepresentative of their followers in terms of sexual proclivities).

Posted by kth | May 16, 2007 3:15 PM

The dream was totally awesome. But, in fairness, it did have a theological underpinning, that nothing God makes is "filthy" or "dirty". It suggests a different way of viewing the world and worship - one focused more on mental purity than physical.

Keep in mind - the roots of the chastity/abstinence movement were very different than they appear today. Holy people gave up everything (not just sex). They ate minimally, they slept uncomfortably, they wore hairshirts, they took vows of poverty, they didn't joke or engage in normal social interaction. All with an end towards focusing solely on God, rather than getting distracted by the sins and pleasures of the physical world. Developing a spiritual relationship with God took precedence.

It looks weird today, because the right-wingers have ignored the reason for these rules. They only focus on the sex, and they still own their big-screen televisions and big cars and sleep in comfy beds and eat to excess. The goal was not to avoid sex alone - it was to focus and seek only after God.

Posted by MDtoMN | May 16, 2007 3:18 PM

Calling someone a "sexually hung-up prude" is obviously an insult...

It's obviously intended as an insult, but the insult only sticks if you buy into a post-Sexual Revolution value system, where being open and easy-going about sexuality is preferable to being prudish and hung-up about it. Clearly, the words themselves convey a point of view, but the state of affairs they describe is objectively true.

For example, "anti-abortion" is a pro-choice-biased way of saying "pro-life." But no pro-lifer would deny he is, in fact, anti-abortion. Similarly, although nobody wants to be called a prude, one could hardly deny that being offended by non-abstinence sex education, pre-marital sex, and homosexuality is objectively anti-sex (that is to say: unmarried, non-heterosexual, and/or kinky sex).

I'm sure Matt has a couple of fancy philosophical terms he can throw in here to precisely characterize this argument.

Posted by Chris Conway | May 16, 2007 3:21 PM

Look, all reasonable parents want to keep their daughters from having babies too soon, before they've found a good husband. People in different social classes have different ways to indoctrinate their daughters to avoid this. What works for self-disciplined high-IQ upper middle class girls doesn't work very well for many working class girls. Now, sneering at working class people who are trying the best they can to give their children a good start in life as "sexually hung-up prudes" is lots of fun, but it gets old fast.

Posted by Steve Sailer | May 16, 2007 3:22 PM

Steve -

Who in the world are you talking about, and what did they say that bothers you and has gotten old?

Posted by MDtoMN | May 16, 2007 3:27 PM

What works for self-disciplined high-IQ upper middle class girls doesn't work very well for many working class girls.

Contraception works for all classes, Mr Steve "Defender of the Working Class Man" Sailer, and it works better than abstinence. Yes, even for po' ho's.

Posted by BP | May 16, 2007 3:29 PM

"Look, all reasonable parents want to keep their daughters from having babies too soon, before they've found a good husband. People in different social classes have different ways to indoctrinate their daughters to avoid this. What works for self-disciplined high-IQ upper middle class girls doesn't work very well for many working class girls. Now, sneering at working class people who are trying the best they can to give their children a good start in life as "sexually hung-up prudes" is lots of fun, but it gets old fast."

Well, David Duke, you kind of ignored the issues of gay marriage and legal, consensual, private sodomy. A good way of preventing a young girl from having babies too soon if she's already pregnant is to allow her to have an abortion, which the fundies want to criminalize. Abstinence-only sex education backfires, despite fundy beliefs. Once again, you show you are intellectually dishonest because you are being intentionally stupid about what the issue is at hand.

Posted by Reality Man | May 16, 2007 3:30 PM

You guys really aren't very good at putting yourselves in the shoes of people unlike yourself, aren't you? These comments are clueless.

Posted by Steve Sailer | May 16, 2007 3:36 PM

I think Sailer is saying if poor people want to indoctrinate their children in the virtues of chastity leave them be to do it and don't portray it as fostering prudery. I agree. I'd also like to see those of more modest means practice a lifetime of abstinence, especially the populations south of the Mason-Dixon. Give that scenario a few years and Walmart will be passing out KY jelly, whiskey and porn DVDs free with every purchase.

Posted by steve duncan | May 16, 2007 3:41 PM

I don't agree with emphasizing fundamentalists' prudishness or sexual neuroses. The issue is arrogant dickhead patriarchy. Fundamentalist would-be patriarchs don't need liberation from their hangups. The people they're trying to dominate need liberation from them.

BTW this is as good a time as any to beg, Steve Sailer, please go away.

Posted by Gary Sugar | May 16, 2007 3:41 PM

You guys really aren't very good at putting yourselves in the shoes of people unlike yourself, aren't you?

Not really, no. That's your speciality. I particularly admire your proficiency at thinking like someone unlike yourself, e.g. a black person.

Posted by BP | May 16, 2007 3:45 PM

Steve: Of course parents don't want they're daughters getting pregnant, and this is a worthy goal. In service of this goal, these evangelicals are advocating "abstinence-only" sex education, which doesn't work. See, for example, here: http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/stateevaluations/index.htm
So I don't see how this aspect of the evangelical program "works" for working-class girls. I don't know if some of the creepier things these people do, like the purity balls and so on, actually work (don't know of any research), but I'm skeptical. And creeped out.

Moreover, these "sexually hung-up prudes" are clearly not only interested in their own kids' sexuality, as is shown by their opposition to abortion rights, their virulent hatred of and opposition to all things gay (people, rights, portrayals in media), and so on. Arguing that evangelicals just don't want their daughters knocked up and therefore we should give them a break is to be completely disconnected from the reality of what these people believe and advocate. They are in fact "hung up" on the sex lives of others, as their actions amply demonstrate.

Posted by Douglas Beach | May 16, 2007 3:51 PM

No Sailor - we're really good at recognizing straw men arguments and calling other people out for it.

If there is an epidemic of leftists or media personalities arguing that parents should not teach their children to be abstinent, then I'd agree with you. Instead, we have epidemic of right-wing Christian Politicians arguing that their children should not learn about contraception and should not learn about reproductive health. Those same politicians see television characters as gay and therefore loathesome.

Falwell wasn't painted as a prude or hung-up. People perceived him as a prude because he was obsessed with the sex lives of consenting adults.

Posted by MDtoMN | May 16, 2007 3:51 PM

I guess if Mr. Goldbergs' mother was not being prudish during her imaginary tryst with Harry Truman.

Posted by SLC | May 16, 2007 3:52 PM

Yes, Steve, support for abortion rights, access to contraception, sodomy decriminalization, and gay marriage clearly indicate that liberals are utterly unable to put themselves in other people's shoes.

And why on earth would a young working class woman want to understand how to avoid STDs and know where to find plan B contraception, when she could instead receive a patronizing lecture telling her that her hymen is sacred?

I mean, in isolation, I might appreciate your concern that working class girls might need a different message than self-disciplined upper-middle-class girls. But your "high IQ" shot, in the context of the rest of your body of work, gives the game away. You're suggesting that black and latina women aren't bright enough to comprehend the subtleties of birth control, and therefore frightening them with hellfire is a better way to keep them in line.

Way to walk a mile in someone else's shoes, there, Saint Steve.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 16, 2007 3:54 PM

Christian chastity has nothing to do with "hang ups" or prudery.

Oh, of course not. It has to do with their earnest faith in Christian scripture, which happens to be hung up on prudish notions about human sexuality.

Actually, Christian scripture is hung up on radical notions about the legitimacy of inequality of wealth. The sex stuff is much less prominent and cuts both ways (e.g., "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone ..."), which is why some Christian denominations -- I'm looking at you, Episcopalians and the UCC -- are pretty liberal on sexual issues.

Posted by alkali | May 16, 2007 4:05 PM

Sharia reduces AIDs in Nigerian region. Allahu Akbar

allafrica.com/stories/200703060265.html

Posted by Aziz Aziz | May 16, 2007 4:11 PM

"You're suggesting that black and latina women aren't bright enough to comprehend the subtleties of birth control, and therefore frightening them with hellfire is a better way to keep them in line."

Uh, the topic is Jerry Falwell's followers, few of whom were black or Hispanic. Indeed, white liberals seldom voice opposition to blacks and Latinos following hellfire preachers, just to white working class people doing so.

Obviously, I'm talking about the kind of white working class girl who is likely to tell her parents, "I don't care about finishing high school. I hate school! And I love Wayne. I'm going to have the baby and I'm moving in with Wayne in his mom's garage as soon as he gets out of Juvie."

Now, I'm all in favor of rational point-by-point argumentation. Personally, I love it. But, I just don't have much faith in its efficacy. If parents prefer to subscribe to a package deal with a 2000 year old track record, who is to say they aren't being more rational?

Posted by Steve Sailer | May 16, 2007 4:12 PM

I recommend that everyone read the whole Jonah Goldberg post. First, it is (of course) short. Second, it is hilarious.

He thinks that the Press is unfair. The press reported Falwell's statements when Falwell condemned Tinky-winky as indoctrinating kids to be gay. Meanwhile, Falwell had gotten that impression because some gay clubbers had decided to make Tinky-winky a campy icon. But people still thought Falwell was being silly and prudish and hung up! The iniquity. The left-wing press. They should have reported about the gay club scene, and explained Falwell's reasoning (not that Falwell had explained it), and everyone would have understood. And if they didn't, it's because they're biased.

Here's a question. The Right-Wing Republican party has adopted the Green Lantern theory of politics (even if they don't call it that). Gay people have created a gay bar called the Green Lantern. Is the green lantern teaching young men to be gay? Are the Republicans gay? Are they indoctrinating me to homosexuality through neoconservative thoery?

If I point that out seriously, would my computer and the internet be discriminating against me by typing it out without explaining my thought process for me? If you all thought I was prudish or a psychopath, would that mean you were discriminatory? What a horrible media universe we live in! The iniquity.

Posted by MDtoMN | May 16, 2007 4:16 PM

Man, I got interested in this conversation right before the troll ate it.

Posted by Chris Conway | May 16, 2007 4:17 PM

So, in essence, Jonah is pissed because Falwell learned from gay people that gay people are gay.

And sorry, Jonah, but evangelicals, the evangelical right, and the right in general, ARE hung-up prudes. I mean, for Christ's sake, what was that whole shitstorm your mom stirred up about Clinton having teh s3x--in tha OVAL OFFICE!!!

Again, why the fuck do otherwise sensible and intelligent pundits like Matty and Ezra Klein persist in treating the defiantly unserious Jonah Goldberg like a serious person???

Posted by Jimmm | May 16, 2007 4:17 PM

Every goddamned holy roller man in the land would gladly give up one nut to be trapped in an elevator with a drunken Jessica Alba. If they protested otherwise they're lying through their teeth.

Ted Haggard would disagree.

Posted by JayhawkDem | May 16, 2007 4:19 PM

Steve Sailer: That 2000 year track record you speak of? It's notable mostly for hypocrisy--the whole do as I say, not as I do thing.

Christian ideas of chastity are a nice idea, but they have utterly failed in the execution, at least where mortals are concerned.

Posted by Jimmm | May 16, 2007 4:24 PM

The most obvious empirical test of the social efficacy of evangelical Christianity among the working class is to compare white working class Americans (high religiousness) to their (in many cases) distant relations, white working class Britons (low religiousness in recent decades).

- The illegitimacy rate among whites is about twice as high in Britain than in the U.S.

- The crime rate (with the exception of homicide, due to the vast number of guns in America) appears to be significantly lower among white Americans than among white Britons. For example, the 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey reported that for every 100 people, there were 55 crimes committed in Britain compared to 40 in the U.S. And that's for the whole population -- if you compare whites to whites, the crime gap is even larger.

- Drunkeness appears to be worse among the Brits too.

At the end of the hyper-relgious Victorian era, the British working class was famous for its law-abidingness and lack of illegitimacy. Not anymore.

For data, see: http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/050403_wsj.htm

Posted by Steve Sailer | May 16, 2007 4:25 PM

Isn't it true that one of the reasons the old evangelicals hate the Mormons so much is the very sexual prudishness that MY references? And I'm not digging up fantasies about polygamist overindulgence, rather the healthy approach to life and love that seems to characterize much, certainly not all, of subsequent LDS culture. Although ol' Brig certainly set himself apart from some evangelicals with his love of dancing, music, and theatre.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | May 16, 2007 4:28 PM

The Victorian era you pine for, Steve, was rife with hypocrisy, too. There has been little falling-off in public morality in England since the 19th century; it's the methods of reporting "degeneracy" that have improved. And your assertion that the working classes were notoriously law-abiding is laughable, simply because laws back then criminalized debt.

Gladstone's prostitutes? Abortion on demand--as long as the man demanded it. Infanticide. What made Victoria's time so interesting, at least from a literary standpoint, was the dichotomy between personal and public expressions of morality.

Hell, homosexuality was outlawed, but not lesbianism--because Victoria didn't know that women had sex with each other. Does that mean there were no dykes in Victoria's time?

How do the numbers stack up in comparing religious Americans to non-religious "native" Germans, French, Italians, Swedes, Danes, Japanese, Dutch, and Spaniards. I know VDare is obsessed with the Special Relationship, but I think it'd be relevant to compare the stats among other wealthy industrialized states. I have a feeling your flimsy assumption about Christianity's 2000 year track record would take a serious beat-down.

Posted by jimmmm | May 16, 2007 4:41 PM

The illegitimacy rate among whites is about twice as high in Britain than in the U.S.

Come on, Steve, quit the PC "illegitimacy" stuff; just come out and say that there are twice as many bastards in Britain as the US. Bastardy is a crime.

Posted by BP | May 16, 2007 5:02 PM

Matt, you missed the best quote from Goldberg's post: "Falwell's operation was always on the lookout for dangerous intersections of gays and kids and clearly picked up on the story."

Yeah, god forbid we should have those gay folks around our kids (or ironically adopting our kids culture into their own).

Posted by Dan Miller | May 16, 2007 5:12 PM

Steve Sailer: actually, working class illegitimacy rates in Victorian England were extremely high. your comparison between the UK and the U.S. today is statistically accurate however.

Lafollette:

you don't understand evangelical theology. dispensationalism...a hermeneutic which began with Charles Scofield in the 19th century is the standard American evangelical hermeneutic today. it teaches that OT or Hebrew Bible passages are not applicable to Christians. they actually rely upon New Testament passages on sexual morality (of which there are a fair number, especially in the Pauline writings). so your particular critique is in fact inaccurate.

Posted by Nathan | May 16, 2007 5:21 PM

Obviously, I'm talking about the kind of white working class girl who is likely to tell her parents, "I don't care about finishing high school. I hate school! And I love Wayne. I'm going to have the baby and I'm moving in with Wayne in his mom's garage as soon as he gets out of Juvie."

Awesome! Steve Sailer's love for argumentation by stereotypical anecdote transcends race! I humbly apologize for suggesting otherwise.

I can't deny that the scenario you're describing exists. What I find interesting is that you would suggest sex education based around a message of "wait until marriage and don't teach them about birth control because it will put ideas into their head" is a good way to combat this problem.

In your continuing quest to deploy accurate stats toward dishonest purposes, you note that America has a much lower rate of illegitimacy than the UK, and you credit religion. True. However, illegitimacy is a far less useful statistic than teen pregnancy, since unmarried 30-somethings having children isn't exactly a social crisis, and 18-year-old girls running off to get married aren't exactly enhancing their career prospects.

I encourage you to compare the US to Scandinavia on teen pregnancy. I also encourage you to compare the rate of teen pregnancy in the US today to what it was 50 years ago when there was prayer in public schools and no sex education.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 16, 2007 5:25 PM

You have to enjoy the idiocy of people who use cultural explanations for everything. People like Sailer spend their entire lives trying to nail jello to a tree and get angry when other people point out 1) the jello fell of the tree and 2) it's a waste of time. You also have to love how he completely fails to admit Matt's point related only a little to, say, abstinence-only education and more to issues manifest in cases like Lawrence v. Taylor (anal) and Roe v. Wade (abortion).

Posted by Reality Man | May 16, 2007 5:30 PM

"Yeah, god forbid we should have those gay folks around our kids"

About 79% of those who allege sexual abuse by clergy are male, according to a USA TODAY review of data on more than 1,300 victims.

Posted by abc | May 16, 2007 5:31 PM

Nathan-- Actually, I'm quite familiar with evangelical theology, and I'm well aware of the rationale for Christians to cite the book of Romans for clinging to their sexual hang-ups while embracing tasty shellfish and pork products.

(Although you certainly do see the passage from Leviticus cited frequently by the Falwell crowd)

But much of the other content in the epistles is not applied rigorously. Remarriage after divorce is an "abomination," recall. My point is that it's a conscious choice to emphasize the sexual hang-ups over the rest of Christian teaching, and the people who followed Falwell rather than, say, the Jimmy Carter strain of the Southern Baptist church, do so BECAUSE they're prudes.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 16, 2007 5:33 PM

Abc: of course, this statistic is meaningless, since it says nothing about abuse that is not committed by clergy.

Posted by Dan Miller | May 16, 2007 5:37 PM

Shame that link Steve provides for "data" doesn't actually have any. Unless cites to ramblings in City Journal count as "data" now.

Posted by Glenn | May 16, 2007 5:37 PM

LaFollette Progressive,

According to Guttmacher Institute:

Teen Pregnancy Rates per 1000
1950: 80
2000: 50

Percent unmarried:
1950: 10%
2000: 79%

So unmarried teen pregnancies:
1950: 8 per 1000
2000: 40 per 1000

Posted by Guttmacher | May 16, 2007 5:46 PM

Now, something else that has been going on in recent decades that hasn't gotten much media publicity because it tends to make white liberals' heads explode in confusion is the growing grass-roots emphasis on holy-roller Christian identity as a way to unite emotionally people of different races.

Among soldiers and college football players, for instance, co-operation between the races is up due to an increased emphasis on a common transracial identity as Christians. According to military correspondent Robert D. Kaplan of The Atlantic, “The rise of Christian evangelicalism had helped stop the indiscipline of the Vietnam-era Army.” And that has helped build bridges among the races. Military sociologists Charles C. Moskos and John Sibley Butler wrote in All That We Can Be: Black Leadership and Racial Integration the Army Way, “Perhaps the most vivid example of the ‘blackening’ of enlisted culture is seen in religion. Black Pentecostal congregations have also begun to influence the style of worship in mainstream Protestant services in post chapels. Sunday worship in the Army finds both the congregation and the spirit of the service racially integrated.”

Similarly, it’s now common to see college football coaches leading their teams in prayer. Fisher DeBerry, the outstanding coach of the Air Force Academy, who has led players with no hope of making the NFL to a record of 169-108-1, hung a banner in the locker room bearing the Fellowship of Christian Athletes’ Competitor’s Creed, which begins, “I am a Christian first and last.” When the administration found out, he was asked to take it down.

Posted by Steve Sailer | May 16, 2007 5:51 PM

"About 79% of those who allege sexual abuse by clergy are male, according to a USA TODAY review of data on more than 1,300 victims.

Posted by abc | May 16, 2007 5:31 PM "

From the interviews with rapists and pedophiles I've read, I've noticed they rarely show genuine attraction to whom they're raping. Often they go after vulnerability when choosing victims, not attractiveness. The point is usually to dominate.

Posted by Reality Man | May 16, 2007 5:52 PM

Ummm, Sailer, my bitch, try to stay on topic. We are talking about whether or not Falwell and co. are truly prudes. Your point only works if you're trying to argue that common hatred of gays ties together conservative Protestants of all races. You are also overlooking how Catholics are Christians too, yet they have been discriminated against socially in the service academies as of late.

Posted by Reality Man | May 16, 2007 5:57 PM

Teen Pregnancy Rates per 1000 1950: 80 2000: 50

That's exactly the statistic I'm referring to. Women are considerably less likely to get pregnant before the age of 20 than they used to be.

People are waiting longer to get married, getting more education, and "waiting until marriage" is a fairly unrealistic expectation.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 16, 2007 6:01 PM

Fisher DeBerry, the outstanding coach of the Air Force Academy, who has led players with no hope of making the NFL to a record of 169-108-1...

You know a lot about race, Sailer, but not a lot about football, huh?

Posted by Steve | May 16, 2007 6:06 PM

Are we supposed to be outraged that a football coach at a taxpayer-funded military service academy was forced to stop proselytizing to his players? Horrors!

And exactly what does this have to with either the price of tea in China, or the general unpleasantness of Jerry Falwell, who attempted to mobilize people toward such political causes as criminalizing homosexuality and removing sex education from schools?

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 16, 2007 6:07 PM

LaFollette Progressive,

The drop in overall teen pregnancy is chiefly due to the drop in married teenagers having children.

Look at the *unmarried* teen pregnancies:

1950: 8 per 1000
2000: 40 per 1000

Is this what widespread sex education is designed to achieve?

Posted by Guttmacher | May 16, 2007 6:13 PM

Guttmacher,

All your stat shows is that there were porbably a lot more shot gun marriages in 1950.

Posted by Eric | May 16, 2007 6:22 PM

Guttmacher--

Are you suggesting that it's good for teenagers to get married?

The old working class social model of shotgun weddings, child brides, and having kids right out of high school was superior to an era in which people delay marriage, get an education, and use birth control to avoid pregnancy?

Teenage pregnancy is lower in the United States than at any point in the Twentieth Century.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 16, 2007 6:23 PM

Guttmacher: why do you hate your own institute?

Are the unmarried teen pregnancy numbers actual or extrapolated from above? I don't think (pregnancy rate) x (marriage rate) is a valid calculation, since the factors are not independent.

Posted by Chris Conway | May 16, 2007 6:25 PM

Sailer, still waiting to here what your argument has to do with abortion or gay marriage.

I'm also surprised no one has brought up the bans on sextoys in states like Alabama.

Posted by Reality Man | May 16, 2007 6:41 PM

Reality Man - I think you mean Lawrence v. Texas, not Lawrence v. Taylor. Just an FYI.

Posted by MDtoMN | May 16, 2007 6:41 PM

Lawrence v. Taylor was the landmark case in which the crackhead half of Lawrence Taylor's personality was sued by the star linebacker half. They settled out of court, but it's rumored that the settlement allowed "Taylor," the linebacker, to continue his craft unimpeded by "Lawrence," with the knowledge that "Lawrence" would eventually take over again.

How was that? I know, I'm no Petey.

Posted by too many steves | May 16, 2007 6:47 PM

Chris,

The married/nonmarried statistics apply only to the pregnant teen sub-population, so there is no extrapolation. Hence (pregnancy rate) x (marriage rate) is correct.

Go to guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050107.html

Eric,

Shotgun marriages have declined, but it can't explain the fourfold jump in nonmarital pregnancies. (Shotgun marriage percentage upon first birth in 1965 was 59%, in 1984 it was 42%.)

Posted by Guttmacher | May 16, 2007 6:51 PM

No pregnant unmarried teenagers are not what sex education was designed to acheive but if your statistics show anything it is that teenagers like to have sex, whether it is 1950 or the year 2000, and whether they are married or not. As discussed above the recent studies about abstinence only education show that it is ineffective at promoting abstinence.

Some people are more reserved than others no amount of condom instruction is going to change their basic character. The public health question at hand is what kind of information do young people need to protect themselves from disease and prepare them to deal with their reproductive health.

Posted by ellenbrenna | May 16, 2007 6:52 PM

"Teenage pregnancy" is a weird statistic, because it assumes that a married 19-year-old getting pregnant is always a social ill. It might be, and it might not be. It sounds funny to a coastal yuppie like myself, but a lot of 19-year-olds are just fine wives spouses and kids.

Posted by too many steves | May 16, 2007 6:57 PM

"Every goddamned holy roller man in the land would gladly give up one nut to be trapped in an elevator with a drunken Jessica Alba."

You know, I have a friend who was trapped in an elevator with Jessica Alba (and Kate Hudson) on his way to a party after the Warriors beat the Dallas Mavericks. My friend said that Jessica Alba is gorgeous, but she is a total bitch! Although Kate Hudson was nice.

Posted by adlsad | May 16, 2007 7:04 PM

Matt is on target here.

I love how conservative commentators - and to be fair, sometimes liberal commentators - act as though the media cannot report reality, ever. What is the media doing in this case, exactly? Is Pastor Ted Haggard a paid actor, working for the insidious commies of CNN? How does the media 'portray' them as sexually-hung up?

It reminds me of the outrage in right-wing corners about the documentary "Jesus Camp". Admittedly, I have only seen youTube clips of the film, but it is a documentary. It simply puts a camera to the camp. Sure, I suppose, they may have featured only the most alarming footage. But it is not as though they are inventing the whole thing, conspiracy moon-landing style.

The final lesson is this: If you think the media is portraying evangelicals as sexually-hung up prudes, thats because they are sexually-hung prudes.

Posted by Neal M | May 16, 2007 7:09 PM

they are sexually-hung

If this was Unfogged, the thread would now spin wildly out of control. But we're all more mature than that, right?

Posted by Chris Conway | May 16, 2007 7:24 PM

It is possible both that abstinence-only education fails and that religious kids are less promiscuous (or whatever) than non-religious kids, after controlling for other variables.

I bet that Sailor is correct about Britain's unfortunate social outcome. I'd probably blame high dropout rates and high unemployment of white working-class Brits compared to those of the US's white working class.

Posted by CircularFile | May 16, 2007 7:25 PM

Steve Sailer:
As has been pointed out, issues of youth sexuality are only one part of the sexual agenda of Falwell's followers. Additionally, your points with respect to the wonders of this down-home approach and the completely irrelevant issue of religion being used by a state employee (in his capacity thereas) to unite students at a state instution allow me to bring up an even less relevant point. Assuming it is in fact useful, should the outlook of a faith (again as opposed to its alleged ends with respect to cooperation and chastity) be encouraged because of this? Or should it be encouraged because it is true? It would seem to me that faith is a system of beliefs about the world and should be adopted and encouraged because of that perceived fact. Assuming that somebody is going to leave her baby locked in the car in the summer for hours unless you tell her Jesus don't stand fo' dat seems really unfair.
The truth will set you free. Whence that, again? Oh yeah, the Bible!

Posted by Trolly McTroll | May 16, 2007 8:22 PM

Re: About 79% of those who allege sexual abuse by clergy are male,

The vast majority of persons accused of sexual abuse up to and including rape are male. Anyone think we should outlaw the male gender?

Also, I suspect your statistic would look a bit different if you included cases of clergy who carry on adulterous affairs with the wives of their flock.

Re: religious kids are less promiscuous (or whatever) than non-religious kids, after controlling for other variables.

Many of these kids rush into marriage the moment they get the hots for someone and are old enough, making the usual adolescent error of equating passing lust with undying love . The predictable result are lots of broken marriages and single parent families which are not, however, captured in the stats for illegitimacy because the kids were at least born in wedlock. This is what lies behind the high divorce rates found throughout the Bible Belt. Even the Middle Ages had the proverb "Marry in haste, repent at leisure". Rather preaching "Wait for sex" they should be preaching "wait for marriage".

Posted by JonF | May 16, 2007 8:33 PM

MY: I assume your use the singular verb for media was a snarky commentary on Luciano's having done the same in the quote. That's enough bloggery. I have work to do.

Posted by Trolly McTroll | May 16, 2007 8:36 PM

MY: I assume your use the singular verb for media was a snarky commentary on Luciano's having done the same in the quote. That's enough bloggery. I have work to do.

Posted by Trolly McTroll | May 16, 2007 8:36 PM

Jimmmm, Is it really true that Queen Victoria (proper and moral apparently, but no prude in her private life) struck the bit outlawing lesbianism because she didn't think there was such a thing or because she knew perfectly well that there was but didn't want it made a public legal issue? Given the rather repugnant boy-selling ring that had inspired the law there was little chance that male gay sex wouldn't be outlawed, but I always gave the old girl some credit for performing a public service.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | May 16, 2007 8:52 PM

Um, am I the only commenter here who thinks that the sexual revolution wasn't that great a thing? Who actually thinks that maybe it was better for kids to grow up without sex being imposed on them (and yes, the modern-day culture does impose it) at a pre-pubescent age?
I don't think you have to be a "prude" to think that the baby-boomer attitude towards sex has done far more harm than good. But congrats on being liberated from society's conventions. It's a great world you've left the next generation as they try to raise up responsible children who don't sleep around every chance they get.

Posted by interesting... | May 16, 2007 8:52 PM

I grew up after the sexual revolution, and I don't recall anyone "imposing" sex on me at a pre-pubescent age. Then again, I was always pretty pubescent; I probably would have welcomed the imposition.

But, back in the real world, the children of the Baby Boomers, with their crazy hippy parents, are way less likely to have kids out of wedlock and do other deviant things than the previous few generations. Pretty much every symptom of moral decline is at its lowest point since the '50s.

Posted by too many steves | May 16, 2007 8:55 PM

too many steves,
Every symptom of moral decline? How about the percentage of high school kids who have had sex before graduating? I can't imagine that the percentage was as high in the 50's.
Of course, you probably think that the increase is a good thing.

Posted by anon | May 16, 2007 8:59 PM

Well, it's a good thing if you're in high school and you'd like to get laid.

Honestly, it's neither good nor bad. I don't think 17-year-olds are always too young to be having sex. Some are, some aren't. Hell, most people are 18 by the time they graduate from high school. It's a bad thing if 18-year-olds are having sex?

The "symptoms of moral decline" I was referring to are stuff like juvenile crime, teen pregnancy, etc. I did a very quick couple of google searches for average age of losing one's virginity, and historical trends in that area, but I didn't find anything.

Posted by too many steves | May 16, 2007 9:14 PM

I don't think you have to be a "prude" to think that the baby-boomer attitude towards sex has done far more harm than good.

Actually I think your sentiment is, in secular terms, completely indefensible. The sanctions on sex before the birth control pill came along were totally, one-sidedly, based on the shaming of women and girls. Whatever cultural harm that might have resulted from a looser attitude toward sex is vastly outweighed by the far greater freedom and equality that women now possess. And make no mistake, you can't have your Victorian society without the pervasive oppression of women. The two are inseparable.

Posted by kth | May 16, 2007 9:20 PM

"Who actually thinks that maybe it was better for kids to grow up without sex being imposed on them (and yes, the modern-day culture does impose it) at a pre-pubescent age?"

Um, yeah. The thing the sexual revolution revolutionized was what 100 years old at most? I assume you mean the one in the 60s and not the one in 20s?

Stephanie Coontz argues persuasivley IMO, in her history of marriage book that the (bullshit pretend) 50s family image was a bizarre creation of atypical economics and the advertising industry that was fairly unique in history.

I, also, grew up after the sexual revolution and I'm glad that I did. Freedom to do as one pleases without too much static (read persecution and maybe worse) from one's community is pretty much essential for that whole pursuit of happiness thing. As for having sex "forced on me" at a young age, I frickin' wish. The only problem with sex I had as teen was that I wasn't having any.

Posted by witless chum | May 16, 2007 9:35 PM

Re: Jimmmm, Is it really true that Queen Victoria (proper and moral apparently, but no prude in her private life) struck the bit outlawing lesbianism because she didn't think there was such a thing or because she knew perfectly well that there was but didn't want it made a public legal issue?

Well, Bill Clinton claimed that what he did with Monica wasn't sex either. And that's not entirely laughable. Once upon a time the legal definition of sex required penetration so that fellatio and cunnilingus were not classed as sex (a marriage could not, for example, be consummated by oral sex). So maybe Victoria was just looking at things from that perspective. By the way, the old girl gets a bad rep for excess prudery. She had ten kids, which suggests that she was not exactly frigid in the boudoir.

Re: Who actually thinks that maybe it was better for kids to grow up without sex being imposed on them (and yes, the modern-day culture does impose it) at a pre-pubescent age?

Once upon a time children at the youngest possible ages routinely witnessed all sorts of things we now hide away behind closed doors: animals having sex, human body functions and their results (see: multi-user outhouses and chamber pots), animals and people giving birth, Animals and people dying (and being killed). The poorer classes had so little privacy (see: one room tenements, log cabins etc.) that there could have been no privacy for marital relations. Somehow the world survived.

Posted by JonF | May 16, 2007 9:51 PM

I'm kind of late to this thread, but I actually was one of those religious working class girls Mr. Sailer discussed earlier. I have no opinion on our IQ's, but I know something from experience about why kids active in a church tend to do a lot less of the sex and drugs stuff. The fear of hell has absolutely nothing to do with it. What works, however, are lots and lots of supervised activities. Said activities provide an opportunity for kids to have a social life while doing something useful, and often provide an alternative source of status for their participants. Thus, kids have a lot less time for driving out of town and getting drunk, which is mostly what leads teens to have sex. (Beer, in my opinion, is the only thing that really is a gateway drug.)

To the extent that the fear of Hell has anything at all to do with this, it's that the fear makes the parents join a church in the first place. Any organization of sufficient size and influence that owned a building could work. The Grange and unions have performed a similar function in other places in the past, as has the Masonic Lodge and its offshoots. The key is that adults have to be willing to hang around kids and supervise the activities.

Posted by Karen | May 16, 2007 11:01 PM

Yeah, I knew Queen Victoria wasn't a prude, although some of her daughters may have been. Apparently when her ninth child (not ten) was born with some complications she said, "Doctor, does this mean I can't have any more fun in bed?"

And in regard to which sexual revolution when, I vividly recall that when I was on the Amherst inter-fraternity council ca. 1967 (don't ask!) we were asked by old Arthur Davenport to vote on a revision of the fraternity rules to references to various prohibited activities that had been put in the rules in the 20's but by 1967 no one knew any longer what they meant and their continuance on the books could only produce (an almost certainly very slight) temptation. The only term I remember is "cabin party," which I can sort of guess at. My impression is that most of the things involved were gang-bang sort of activities featuring rather spoiled rich kids exploiting women of the lower classes. Pairing up among Amherst and Smith students in the 60's frankly represented an improvement on that.

And anyone who has seen the rather charming 1925 Clara Bow movie called The Plastic Age might conclude that by 20's standards the 60's were comparatively tame. Interesting that Clara's films tend to present a more honest view of sex and class than has been current since.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | May 16, 2007 11:07 PM

Stephanie Coontz argues persuasivley IMO, in her history of marriage book that the (bullshit pretend) 50s family image was a bizarre creation of atypical economics and the advertising industry that was fairly unique in history.

Ding fucking ding. What came before? Domestic service. Extended families that lived together.

Who actually thinks that maybe it was better for kids to grow up without sex being imposed on them (and yes, the modern-day culture does impose it) at a pre-pubescent age?

Uh, yeah. As opposed to a fictional past in which girls weren't getting married off and impregnated at 14? But please don't allow such things to get in the way of god-bothering revisionism.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 16, 2007 11:29 PM

"I have no opinion on our IQ's, but I know something from experience about why kids active in a church tend to do a lot less of the sex and drugs stuff. The fear of hell has absolutely nothing to do with it. What works, however, are lots and lots of supervised activities."

That's funny, because I know many, many people who first experienced sex & drugs at church youth group retreats.

Posted by too many steves | May 17, 2007 12:22 AM

Thanks, Karen, for your informative contribution.

Posted by Steve Sailer | May 17, 2007 1:09 AM

So, why do Christian and Jewish churches dislike the idea that male homosexuality is innate? Well, within their institutional memories, most homosexual behavior was clearly the result of nurture rather than nature. It's pretty clear that in Greek and Roman times, homosexual behavior wasn't much at all like modern Castro Street homosexuality. To a very large extent, it was an indulgence practiced by the powerful on the weak: what we think of as child molestation, prison rape, and sexual harassment. (Modern homosexuals often fail to realize that they would have been scorned in Athens as womanish for wanting to please another man.) Even at it's least abusive, ancient homosexuality reflected youthful male-male infatuations that only flourished when women were sequestered or despised. The triumph of Jerusalem over Athens came both by negative sanctions on vice but also by the increased status of women under Christianity, which made companionate marriage the ideal.

My best guess is that due to the success of Christianity at stigmatizing homosexual vice, we are left then, largely, with men who are innately homosexual. But that also explains why Christians and orthodox Jews have a hard time agreeing that homosexual behavior stems from innate homosexual orientations -- in their historical experience, most homosexual behavior was not an innate orientation, but was controllable by social sanctions.

Posted by Steve Sailer | May 17, 2007 1:14 AM

Yes, the red-hot poker treatment certainly works as a social sanction.

Posted by MikeN | May 17, 2007 3:10 AM

"Christian chastity has nothing to do with "hang ups" or prudery."

So what else was it that motivated evangelical John Ashcroft to have the statue of Justice covered up?

Posted by Ginger Yellow | May 17, 2007 9:38 AM

Ginger Yellow: because a subordinate thought a blue curtain backdrop looked better on TV:

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/001287.php

Posted by James Kabala | May 17, 2007 9:52 AM

Karen, thanks for your contribution. That meshes pretty well with my own experiences.

Church youth groups are generally a positive influence in a community. The issue here is not whether such groups do good things and teach children to be more responsible. The question is whether the political agenda Jerry Falwell wanted to impose was a good thing-- mandating abstinence-only sex education, criminalizing abortion, pornography, and homosexuality, and so forth. In other words, they want to restrict the freedom of other adults. Many, perhaps even most, Christian churches don't see this as their calling in their world.

In 1950, it was quite common for girls to graduate from high school, get married, and have children immediately. And a family could earn middle class wages from a single factory job. Those days, you might have noticed, are over. You're fighting a losing war against nature if you try to convince the great mass of humanity to avoid sexual intercourse until the age of 22. Giving them the information they need to act responsibly is a no-brainer.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 17, 2007 10:17 AM

Also: The Sky Is Blue

Comments (89)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories