Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site uwmacc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Christianity, Statistics, Sex and Marriage Message-ID: <226@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 23-Aug-84 15:48:57 EDT Article-I.D.: uwmacc.226 Posted: Thu Aug 23 15:48:57 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 25-Aug-84 06:58:30 EDT Organization: UWisconsin-Madison Academic Comp Center Lines: 144 > [Rich Kulawiec] > Now, as I pointed out to Jeff, I didn't say that either the premise > or the conclusion were wrong; I said that the derivation of > the stated conclusion from the stated premise was bullshit. > > Why did I say this (here comes your answer): > > 1. This is a survey of Redbook readers; hardly a scientific > cross-section of any group...except, of course, Redbook readers who > answer surveys. Quite right. However, 100K readers is a lot. It was, at that time, the largest sample collected from a survey of this nature. Perhaps a larger one has been gathered by now. Anyway, I grant you your point, having never claimed this to be a scientific sample. I know better. Most social science completely violates random sampling, which rather invalidates the conclusions drawn on the basis of statistical procedures. That is why psychology, for example, is largely the psychology of American college sophomores, sample size 20..40. Perhaps you will concede that 100K is more representative than that? > In other words, the extrapolation implied in the conclusion, to > American Christian women, to Christians in general (note final > statement) seems very farfetched to me. For example: how many > men read Redbook? Perhaps I can render the extrapolation less unreasonable. Redbook readers => American Christian women: This is, I maintain, a valid extrapolation. Redbook readers are in large part American. It may also be argued that they are, as a group, religious. Robin Beal submitted this conjecture some time ago. That conjecture would seem to be borne out by the figures. For example, Gail Sheehy ran a survey in (where else?) Redbook in 1979. About 70-80 percent of the respondants (of which there were in excess of 60,000) were either Protestant or Catholic. I think we may then presume that those who rated themselves deeply religious in the survey I brought up were drawn most heavily from those groups, i.e., they were American Christian women. American Christian women => Christians in general Well, of course, we often hear the line on this net, and elsewhere, that Christians go heavy on the authority, are unwilling to tolerate disagreement, etc., so obviously if the conclusion is valid for Christian women, it's true for all Christians. But that's a poor argument. We have definite views but we are not always monolithic in our thought. Let me approach this from another angle. If a Christian women enjoys sex, it is reasonable to assume that she is married. Most Christians do agree that sex is to be enjoyed within marriage. Now ask, how likely is it that the Christian women enjoy sexual relations if their husbands do not, and consider it sinful? Sex is hardly a good place for functional decomposition: its enjoyment is mutual or it is nothing. Even several non-Christians in this newsgroup have indicated such. It is also more likely for the man to enjoy sex and not the woman than the other way around. A man can get "serviced" quickly and think that's enjoyment while leaving the woman stranded, emotionally, physically and spiritually. I contend it does not often work the other way around. It is also a common occurrance in counseling for men, inconsiderate clods that we too often are, to say "our sex life? It's great!", while being completely oblivious to how the woman sees it (often in a quite different, and less enthusiastic, way). Because of these considerations, I submit that if any given percentage (less than 100, of course) of Christian women enjoy sex, a higher percentage of the husbands do, too. This gets us as far as the husbands in the extrapolation. All that's left is the children. Christian parents, holding that their beliefs are good and true, attempt to transmit them to their children. Part of those beliefs concern sexual behavior. If they succeed in transferring their beliefs to the next generation, the extrapolation is complete. If they don't, their children will not be Christians, and hence no extrapolation need be demonstrated. Ok? You may not agree with all of the above, but in light of it, is it really so outrageous to make the claim I made? > 2. What is a "healthy" or "unhealthy" attitude about sex? Says who? > I say that an unhealthy attitude is one which disallows sex outside > of marriage; you may not agree; who is right? Healthy: sex between a husband and wife. Period. No exceptions. Not sex before marriage, outside of marriage, sex with children or with animals. Not homosexual sex. Who says? You don't really need to ask, I'll bet. You don't agree? That's your right, but I think you will become disillusioned later in life. The mutual and complete committment on the part of the partners in Christian marriage is a joy to behold, and to experience. > 3. Suppose for a moment that we neglect points 1 and 2; what does > the enjoyment of sex by religious women have to do with their > (Christain) ethical attitude about sex? In other words, someone > who is deeply religious may enjoy lovemaking a great deal; what does > that have to do with their ethical attitudes. Huh? Decoupling of ethical and religious beliefs is not so easily done. > 4. Suppose we now neglect 1, 2, and 3; we still have the problem > of matching "the Christian ethic" to the attitudes of the people > out there who call themselves Christians. In other words, a > philosophical statement is not equivalent to the attitudes of a > large number of people. Perhaps, but not necessarily. > Side note: As it happens, Paul, I *do* disagree with your conclusion; > probably because I have my own ideas about Christianity (and for > that matter, Judaism, and so on) and sex; but you've probably deduced > that already, anyway. Since our definitions of "healthy attitude" > probably differ, it is unlikely we will agree on that...and I'm not > trying to argue you out of your view. I'm merely pointing out that > the deductive process shown in your original article is faulty. Thank you. That's all I asked. Thank you also for moderating your language, even if unintentionally... In any event, what I object to is the idea that Christians are all hung-up and inhibited in regard to sex, an unwarranted and fallacious generalization. We believe, in fact, that some types of sex *are* wrong. That does not prevent us from experiencing the joy and glory of sex in its proper framework (marriage). This is simply a recognition that a phenomenon may be useful and good in one context and immoral and degrading in another. An oft-used analogy is that of electricity, which unharnessed in the form of lightning is destructive and dangerous, but when channelled as in modern electrical power delivery systems, is very beneficial. All analogies break down at some point, and this one is no exception, but I trust the point is clear. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage forever: for they are the rejoicing of my heart. Psalm 119:111