Monday, March 07, 2011

A Pity on the Sluts

[an unhappy camper?]

According to an op-ed article in today's New York Times, Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker, in their recent book, “Premarital Sex in America” have published research, which looks at sexual behavior among contemporary young adults and finds a significant correlation between sexual restraint and emotional well-being, between monogamy and happiness — and between promiscuity and depression.

This correlation is much stronger for women than for men. Female emotional well-being seems to be tightly bound to sexual stability — which may help explain why overall female happiness has actually drifted downward since the sexual revolution.

Among the young people Regnerus and Uecker studied, the happiest women were those with a current sexual partner and only one or two partners in their lifetime. Virgins were almost as happy, though not quite, and then a young woman’s likelihood of depression rose steadily as her number of partners climbed and the present stability of her sex life diminished.

In other words, by engaging in casual, promiscuous sex, men are selfishly hurting women and women are foolishly hurting themselves.

I don't mean to sound flippant, but "Duh".


nc said...

Don't confuse correlation with causation. It is just as likely that sexual promiscuity is a reflection of mental health issues rather than a cause of it.

jewish philosopher said...

Right. "Getting that girl pregnant, giving her stds and then dumping her didn't cause her suicide; if she dated me, she was crazy to begin with." I read you man.

ksil said...

NC is right, you can find data to support any lifestyle you choose....

jewish philosopher said...

Sure it's good for you - if she's your wife. If not, her boyfriend will smack you in the face, significantly adding health problems.

Abe said...

"nc said...
Don't confuse correlation with causation. It is just as likely that sexual promiscuity is a reflection of mental health issues rather than a cause of it."

He's not confusing it, he's deliberately abusing it. Its the prime logical dislocation of his warped religion and a much needed ingredient of his ritualistic narcissism.
When an attempt at coherent debate makes him look like a fool, he utilizes his well recognized sophistry to attempt an air of discernment.
I must say however, he makes for good entertainment.

jewish philosopher said...

Causation is always merely a guess, but sometimes a pretty convincing guess.

Suppose that a student performed poorly on a test and guesses that the cause was his not studying. To prove this, one thinks of the counterfactual – the same student writing the same test under the same circumstances but having studied the night before. If one could rewind history, and change only one small thing (making the student study for the exam), then causation could be observed (by comparing version 1 to version 2). Because one cannot rewind history and replay events after making small controlled changes, causation can only be inferred, never exactly known. This is referred to as the Fundamental Problem of Causal Inference – it is impossible to directly observe causal effects.

Getting back to reality, how many parents do you think there are who hope that their daughters will have sex with dozens of random men? Why is that? And this is universal, not merely monotheistic.