A reader writes:
Here’s another fine example of our sexually deranged culture. According to a study done by the University of Iowa published in USA Today, casual sex is A-Okay!
Refreshingly, many commentors over at USA Today found this “scientific” study to be a bunch of nonsense, but of course there were the usual suspects railing against the “Bronze Age folklore” (aka the Bible) that has kept us from experiencing the joys of bed hopping. Now that Science has once again disproved religion, we are finally freed from the shackles of those old fogey religious teachings on chastity! Three cheers for promiscuity!All kidding aside, these kinds of “studies” make it harder (at least for me) to evangelize others about the merits of a chaste life, because after all, Science says promiscuity is just as good a lifestyle choice as any other. Do you have any advise about how to show the truth of Catholic teaching once you have “studies” like these thrown in your face?
This is another classic case of the faith-based nature of most discussions of Science in American culture. What people who tout studies like this “know” is not the actual science (if any) behind the study, but merely that a headline they read in USA Today told them that SCIENCE said something that they are very gratified to hear. The key to all such discussions is the magic words, “Documentation please?” When pressed to give specifics on what they know, it soon becomes plain that what most people mean by SCIENCE is “This headline I once read in USA Today as I was wolfing down a bagel on the subway.”
A little study by the University of Iowa reported by USA Today with God-knows-what accuracy does not constitute a refutation of the common sense moral tradition of the human race. Even pagans (real ones, not the tinsel and paste Wicca sort) knew that random casual sex was not a good idea.
As to one-off “studies”: big deal. I used to work for Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center here in Seattle. Preliminary study after preliminary study pointed to the very strong indication that vegetables high in Vitamin A would cut your chances of lung cancer. The indications were so strong, in fact, that the Hutch undertook a huge and expensive research trial in which people at high risk for lung cancer were divided into active and placebo groups and the active ones were asked to take high doses of Vitamin A. After several years, the research was conclusive:
The active participants were suffering from a higher rate of lung cancer due to their exposure to Vitamin A and the trial was brought to a screeching halt.
Little studies like the one at U of I are basically meaningless. A single data point that proves nothing. Anybody who chucks immemorial human wisdom about the destructive effects of casual sex because of some two-bit study they read about in USA Today over a cup of coffee is, quite simply, a fool who understand neither science nor common sense.
Comments
Post a Comment
Not only must you ask about documentation but inquire about who sponsored the study and who exactly they were talking to, including how many as that can skew results as well. Now, we all know it shouldn’t but it does. If a drug company seeking new clients for the new drug for rampant STD’s, seek a study that supports casual sex but only interview folks from the club scene in NYC, or those who watch a steady diet of “Jersey Shore”. Don’t bother ask young people who might attend a committed Christian college. And if talking to 50 people get you the results you want, stop asking the questions. During a post on another site about a similar study, the comment was made - “torture the numbers enough and they’ll confess to anything”.
Good heavens, Miss Sheamoto, you’re beautiful!
A factor we seem to forget is that we’re the only species on this planet that waits to have sex. When our bodies are physically ready and our inner voices have knowledge of that physical maturity, most of the societies of humans say “wait”.
I’m just tossing this into the mix for discussion. I’m not advocating 12 year old mothers. But despite our yearnings to be oh so intelligent, not all humans can or desire to enter into celibacy, especially with newly raging hormones.
Does our sex education get explicit enough with the ramifications of sexual encounters? Do kids about to become physically able to consciously enter into the act of sex fully comprehend the path they’re on? This is not a religious or abstinence question. Do they know the work it takes to carry and raise a child? Do they fully know the ramifications of the STDs out there?
I read recently that more college students “hooked up” at religious institutions than state or other private schools. Did prohibition not teach us anything? It takes much more than “just don’t do it” to get the point across.
At present, of course, all we have is a reporter’s summary of the “Science,” which God knows what even that is worth, but even so this jumped out at me:
Anyone notice any relevent criteria NOT mentioned here?
The one that’s jumping out at me is “duration of current relationship.” The survey seems to be about measuring something called “quality of relationship”—NOT “chance of long-term relationship,” as the headline incorrectly indicates. The researchers picked couples who were actually in relationships and asked them about their relationships. That doesn’t tell us ANYTHING about the CHANCES OF FORMING such a relationship in the first place.
To determine THAT, one would have to survey people who are interested in long-term relationships, WHETHER OR NOT they are currently in any relationship at all, and determine the percentages that are or are not (a) promiscuous, and (b) actually in relationships that have lasted, say, five years or more, ten years or more, fifteen years or more, etc.
As it appears this is not the research that was done, the headline seems clearly bogus.
Even if we leave religion, the historical facts should not be set aside. The present day civilization of family, marriage, fidelity etc are the result of thye experiences of thousands of generations. Take for example, the priciples of hygeine, the mode of dress etc are evolved over many years. The polygamy/polyandry, the wandering life, the free sexual encounters on momentary thoughts and emotions have all been found not good for the individuals and the society and slowly the civilization of family life has dawned. Religion has given sacredness for the same as it would give courage and strength to follow the unwritten code of morals. Democracy, freedom of expression, and many human rights have come to stay. The involvement of sex and the allied life style in these changes cannot be ignored. So civilized generation will uphold the family and its sacredness. Those who oppose it are pursuers of pleasure without thinking of the dangerous results and the destruction of the current civilization. Let more thinking happen and wisdom dwell.
K. C., yes, ironically, pseudo-scientific anti-religionists seizing on tidbits like this to call for a brave new morality are ignoring precisely EVOLUTION, specifically social evolution. Promiscuity can be a successful reproductive strategy for the individual—certainly for the individual male—but promiscuity tends to be an unsuccessful strategy for society, which is why, over the course of millennia, societies that have restrained such behavior in individuals have succeeded over societies that have not.
As Steve points out, this isn’t even really scientific, in the empirical sense. Rather, it’s essentially an opinion survey.
People who engage in casual sex think casual sex is a good thing.
In other news, water is still wet!
“The study suggests that rewarding relationships are possible for those who delay sex. But it’s also possible for true love to emerge if things start off with a more Sex and the City approach, when people spot each other across the room, become sexually involved and then build a relationship,” he added.
Except for the “Sex and the City” part, becoming sexually involved with someone and then building a relationship is exactly how 90% of the human race has ever contracted marriage. It’s not just the pagans of this culture who are messed up.
I am not at all surprised by the study. As long as organizations like Planned Parenthood are allowed into our schools whats to be expected.
PPH is invited into our schools and teaches our children that it is ok to have sex, they even hand out condoms. They teach our children to become familiar with certain parts of their bodies and how to self gratify themselves, and have sex. Sounds sick I know, but it is true.
With the new vaccine for HPV it gives more of a green light to our children that sex is safe.
Now if by chance these condoms don’t work and an std is contracted what does PPH do then?
If pregnancy occurs we know what they do then, that’s an easy one.
So, as long as organizations such as PPH are allowed to reach our children, along with the influence of tv and radio, no doubt we will have adults with this view, that casual sex is ok.
Surprised, not at all…this is typical behavior after all it is being taught in schools, and a child of eleven becomes an adult if pregnant. So, whose children are they anyway? These are the very children who grow up to give these kinds of results to surveys.
It is up to us to take control of our children and our own lives.
Yup! Casual sex: the elixir of life. More STDs, more unwanted pregnancies, more psychological problems, more depression, more abortions. Less self control, less self respect, less chance of stable long term relationships later on. Can’t figure out why people are against it!
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.