Sexual repression in America
Offline Is sexual repression an American thing or is it a Christian American thing?
It seems like America is disgusted by sex, mainstream America links sex to immorality and social decay. America also has a huge problem with alternative lifestyles like homosexuality. I want to know if this is purely an American thing or if it is an American theist thing?
Also what is the general atheist consensus on sex?
Personally I think sex is perfectly natural and a normal part of human life. I also think homosexuality is natural, homosexuality can be traced back almost as far as we can trace back human history.
In America sexual repression runs rampant. The way I see it the repression of an urge so fundamental and so ingrained to/in our being is nothing short of dangerous. I actually think (and many studies I have seen agree) that sexual repression leads to a host of social problems. It can lead to lack of self-confidence, low self-esteem, aggression, violence, sexual abuse and suicide. Other studies show that sexual relief is effective in countering anxiety, depression, and stress.
I bring this up because I saw on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart a few days ago a video of presidential candidate Mitt Romney. In his speech he went on to say that sex was immoral and the Europe is in crisis because they have given up their God and are having sex. Since when is Europe in crisis? I go to Europe often and it seems to me that it is doing much better than America. I am going to avoid getting into all the statistics suffice to say the Europe as a whole has lower teen pregnancy, STD, Aids, suicide and crime rates. What crisis is Europe facing? Maybe he meant a spiritual one.
Even American television is sexually repressed, people being shot, beheaded, and tortured is the norm and while extreme violence does get high ratings for the most part its acceptable. However if you have a sex scene with a little thrusting then the sky is falling. Movies like Sin City get R’s, movies with a few sex scenes get NC-17, in Europe it is they do the opposite and rightly so. Doesn’t it make more sense to shield young children from watching people being beheaded than to shield them from seeing the perfectly natural act of sex?
What the hell is wrong with America?
Also for all you theist, can you justify your religions views towards sex? Can you explain why sexual openess is Europe actully leads to an overall healthier society?
P.S. I am from Australia
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
- Login to post comments
Well in my personal opinion, in north america it is a religious thing, that has more or less made itself a social norm, sex is bad, well not that much, sexualizing is ok, actual sex is bad, show a female nipple, oh boy that's even worse (ok for you yanks it is, up here in the north that little janet jackson incident....barely registered as a problem here). With that said, I wouldn't say it's a christian thing, brazil, argentina and many other south and central american countries are majority christians, usually of the roman catholic sect, (which tends to be on the sexually repressed side...just a little) sexuality and sex and nakedness (especially the female form) is far more accepted than in US.
Now with that said, I have many european friends.....the swedes are probably the most sexually open, and yet are not very much on the multiple partners side (again my experience) they have low teen pregnancy and low STD's as a society as a whole, they are also taught about sex from an early age, so it's not really a mysterious thing to them as it is in the north american society, and because it is talked about in school, kids aren't as caught up in the mystery and romance of it all as we are in N.A. Now again...my own experience, the more religious...the more sexually active with multiple partners, such as the good old irish women (not to insult all irish women however) specifically the catholic irish......all I can say is that I have never had one turn me down....and it was always dirty as sin
.
I personally believe in open talks about sex and sexuallity, teens tend to be confused about their own bodies and sex, i mean I have heard some of the dumbest things from my american girlfriend, such as A) They can't get pregnant if I pull out before I cum, B) do it standing up, C) If they are on top, oh and one wouldn't swallow because she was afraid she would end up pregnant....(now in all fairness I heard a couple of these from a few canucks.....but so so so far less...maybe 2 girls). You don't want your kids to be sexually active at a young age? Make it something that is not a mystery, don't let them romancize the idea, make it a normal subject, so that they know that it isn't like what hollywood protrays, nor in literature and so on. About the real possiblity of pregnancy (use condoms or if you have a girl...put her on the pill, my wife was on the pill from 16 on...and didn't have sex until she was 19....and wasn't pregnant until 3 years ago at 26), and drill it into their heads that they have to be responsible for their actions and the consequence of those actions.
You can sum up the relationship between sex and religion very simply
Sex is more fun than religion, therefore its a threat to religion, therefore religious people need to control it
It's America's Puritan heritage. That's been a a benefit and a hindrance. It's a morality developed during the middle ages when people didn't know what STDs were and there was no birth control.
I think there is a danger in saying what the atheist consensus is about anything, we're freethinkers. I think the only atheist consensus is there is no god to punish us for having or not having sex. We don't have to think about heaven or hell when deciding to have sex. Our morality comes from within and a humanist desire to benefit and not harm our fellow men and women, not from God.
The Church has successfully associated atheism with rampant sex with multiple partners. Truth is, without God, people are free to choose their own morality and lifestyle so long as it does not harm others. So some atheists will choose a very promiscuous life, others monogamous marriage. Some people are asexual or have very little sex for whatever reason, there is no reason such a person couldn't say "I see no evidence for any god's existence".
What's happened is the church in America has hijacked morality and sexual moderation. So many people who don't choose to be sexually promiscuous believe the Church's propaganda that morality can only come from faith in God. This means if they wish to wait until marriage or not have any sex, they think they need to join a church and force themselves to believe(aka LAB). Then in church, they get feed the lies that all atheists must be necessarily highly promiscuous about sex. So women especially think if the family stopped forcing themselves to believe in God, her husband would just cheat on her and leave. Hence she forces the husband to go to church, even though it's highly repressive to masculinity.
Within the atheist community, there should be subgroups for people who choose monogamous marriage and for asexual people. This would demonstrate the fallacy of the Church's argument.
Religion in America really screws men up with the you can't masturbate or even lust after women and by making prostitution illegal. It has really turn many American men highly Pussy Whipped creatures. Maybe that's a topic for another post.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Funny you say that, the first time I made a lot of money was when I charged to teach pussy whipped American men how to get hot women interested in them. It was always the same thing though, they wanted a 'soul mate' which pissed me off. In the end most of them ended up going for anonymous 1 night stand route (gave into their nature).
Anyway there is a reason why I ask the atheist consensus even though I know atheist are free thinkers. Most atheist start of religious and then become atheist. I want to see if that sexual prejudice survives the death of religion in their lives. I really want to get down to the heart of this and find out if its a America issue or if its an American Christian issue. I was young when I stopped believing in God so I grew up with the idea that sex is normal, I cannot answer the question myself.
Even thought Atheist are free thinkers most of them believe that we all came about through evolution or a similar process so most must believe we are all essentially animals. In my opinion being an atheist should mean that a person is more sexually open. Now this does not mean that I think atheist go to mass atheist orgies I am simply pondering the idea of whether or not sex is a more open subject to a atheist. I am really not interested in peoples sex lives just interested with how average atheists view sex as a whole.
I would also like to hear some Christians trying to defense religions repression of sexuality.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
I was brought up in a conservative christian enviroment. Now I don't live in America, but I went to a christian school whose cirruculum was imported from America. However, I would say sexual repression is a christian thing.
The idea of sex being dirty and bad was definetly drilled into me while there. Sex was rarely mentioned in my schooling,and when it was it was damn sure to make sure it was within the confines of marriage. Add to this girls whose skirts must be below their knees, and the six inch rule( opposite sexes must be at least 6 inches from each other) and I ended up with a pretty skewed view of sex and intimacy.
Even after being a atheist for more than a year, I find it hard to break the views and predjudices instilled in me regarding this.Point is,christians everywhere don't like sex.
Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible
Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.
I wasn't brought up 'hardcore' christian. The religious beliefs I held very early in my development were grown by scattered attendance to Sunday school, a few summers of bible camp and the occcasional 'punishment' of watching Billy Graham for typical youthful angst. I can say that my sexual 'repression' was influenced by religion in a 'cultural' way versus growing up in a strict religious household.
I grew up very guarded when it came to sex. My father and mother didn't talk about sex in a way that was constructive or educational to us at all. As a matter of fact my father spoke to sex in a way that scared me mostly...any boy that came to the house or called the house, we were told that we were not to be 'sluts' and if we were to fall from that rule we would be placed in a 'girls home.' Interesting how that felt at age 13-18 with no sex ed from the parents... what was a slut and if that was merely getting phone calls or holding hands with a boy, would I be seperated from my family and placed in an institution for 'wayward' girls? Not to mention the confusion when I received attention from boys and men at that age... it felt..wrong (thanks dad)
To this day when I see younger kids walking in a mall or in a park holding hands or groping one another, my first thought in my mind: "You are way too young and should not be doing that" .... very reactive and emotional no regard to human sexual nature.
To address American television being sexually repressed: I do believe American TV has changed a bit when it comes to sexuality (have you seen FX?). When my husband and I first moved to Illinois from Iowa, I was still living in a bubble regarding the right and wrong when it comes to sex and what you see on TV and hear on the radio. The topic on the first radio talk show I heard after moving to Illinois was about sex...I was SO disgusted and weirdly drawn to listening as well. Then we purchased cable... then the internet... I learned more about sexuality after being married with those communication outlets then ever before.
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
I was not brought up in a religious enviroment however I can't get laid, is this due to religious fundamentalism or me just not being very attractive to women.
A mate of mine at work is a Muslim and a very nice bloke. I've told him I might consider converting to Islam just to get an arranged shag (sorry marriage).
Is this a good idea?
For the woman you would be "arranged with"? I doubt that.
From an evolutionary perspective, sexual repression has the benefit of controlling blood lines. Suppression of sexuality through religion is a convenient method for contolling the propagation of genetic material. Of course now that we are enlightened and in control of our genetic destiny, SHAG FEST!
My Artwork
Oh come on thats not fair..... Arab, green eyed, brunette you can't say their not amazingly attractive.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
I think you misunderstand me, i meant not a good idea FOR the arab woman.
Sexual repression is Human thing, ideologies are just excuses to do so.
Arranged marriages are almost entirely based on income and family status, for an IT geek they are a err 'godsend'
On Myth, Sexuality, and Culture
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
It has to be a christian thing, because non christians have no reason to fear sex. Really though, we are not that sexually repressed. Go to college for a while and you will see that most women get laid whenever they want, and so do most men.
Simple, everyone is happier. Happy people are healthy people, both physically and emotionally.
And to mrjonno, I really hope your joking. If you'r a guy, and your not getting laid, your just not trying hard enough. Ugly guys get laid all the time. So grow a pair and go get some.
"I may be going to hell in a rocketship, but at least I get to ride in a rocketship. You have to climb those damn stairs. " - Katie Volker
This much is true, but to be objective about sexual repression, we can't just talk about how often or with how many partners someone has sexual intercourse. Sex is much more than intercourse in our highly ritualized society. From low cut dresses to holding hands to going out to bars to playing truth or dare, our society is infused with symbols of what our sexuality means to us.
Even within sexual practice itself, there are telltale signs. You pick any city in the deep south, and I guarantee that if you surveyed 100 women about how often they masturbate, at least 30 would gasp and say, "NEVER!" A few weeks ago, I was talking about this with some friends, and someone asked me about Baptist girls. (I was Baptist when I was Christian.) Off the cuff, I replied, "Baptist girls are easy. You just have to be able to put up with the crying and the guilt afterwards. The truth at the heart of that tactless joke is proof of just how meaningless the number of sexual encounters is.
Just how much sexual 'liberation' is normal or appropriate is also part of the question. Should we only label people as sexually liberated when they are uninhibited enough to take vacations to Hedonism and openly swap partners? Or is that kind of behavior a backlash against repression? Is a certain amount of polygamy acceptable? What about 'alternative practices' like anal sex?
Just what constitutes repression depends a lot on what constitutes non-repression, and that's really hard to define. If anything, humans' greatest evolutionary advantage is our flexibility. We can live rather happily in a tribe, in communes, in polygamous relationships, in monogamous relationships, or a host of others -- so long as culture condones it.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I can only give my personal experience on this one, I have been a life long atheist for as long as I could remember, we didn't exactly talk about sex, however it was never taboo in my house either, the one thing I remember my father always saying to me and my sister was don't make him a grandfather...that's it. That was all he requested, and I didn't.....until i hit 29. Now both my sister and I took sex ed in school and it was again encouraged in our household to take it, we could ask questions and we did, and it was discussed, my parents however never initiated it. With that said, my sister was never the promiscuis (sp?) type and she has decided not to have children, I myself was a major man whore in my late teens and early twenties (however condoms where always a must and all my partners knew about the other women so that they knew exactly what they were getting into, i believe in being open about this) but eventually settled with one woman, and happily married for the last 7 years.
With that said, and i can only speak for myself....sexual repression is the last of my worries, and for teaching my daughter about sex, i plan to, at an early age, well before her teens, I rather it be a mundane subject, something we can talk about rather than something taboo. Nothing to be embarrassed about since it is a human act, a natural thing to do, I don't want any mystery or taboo behind it.
Well, I'll be damned! It appears that thinking rationally about sexuality can lead to healthy attitudes...
Who would have thought...
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
From an evolutionary standpoint, us guys have a dual nature. There is this side that wants to spread our seed around and have sex with lot of women with no strings attached. But then we have a desire to love and bond with one woman, live with and take care of her and your children. There is obviously evolutionary advantages to both.
For women, it's obviously to their advantage to get a loyal man to take care of her and children.
There is a myth in American culture that men who are promiscuous are total deviant scumbags(especially among women). So us guys have to put on the act of not even having a promiscuous nature in order to get a girlfriend or wife. It's crazy for Christian men, you go to Hell for lust with other women, so you have to train your eyes to not even look at other women. So the Christian culture in America is one of extreme Pussy Whipping. In most other cultures in the world, it's pretty much a given that men are promiscuous.
Since this change to atheism for me is really all about being honest with myself(HAB). I just admit to myself and women that I have this dual nature to both bond with one special woman and to be promiscuous as well. You can't marry a Christian woman cause you'd go crazy with the total repression of the promiscuous side of your masculine nature.
I think in the old Testament, it was all about keeping the Jewish race pure. They didn't want the men spreading their seed around with foreign women.
In the NT, it's about keeping men away from women and relationships that could cause them to doubt. You control a man's sexuality, you pretty much control the man(you got him by the balls).
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Cultural myth alert!
It's not as obvious as you would think. In a society where one man and one woman raise their own children, it's to a woman's advantage to get one loyal man, but in a more tribal setting, where the older children and women all contribute child-rearing towards everyone's children, there's no particular advantage to the woman in gaining a loyal man. In this instance, it is to her advantage to get the strongest, smartest, or sexiest man, regardless of his fidelity.
Many primitive cultures lean much more heavily towards group childrearing, even today. There's an interesting story, told by Stephanie Coontz, the preeminent social scientist, about when she was in the Phillipines with her young child. There was a group of women sitting around a circle performing various tasks, and a bunch of young children were inside the circle. Ms. Coontz was constantly preoccupied with keeping track of her own child, and got stressed every time it got more than a few feet away. After watching more carefully, she realized that she was making a cultural bias error. None of the other mothers were stressing, and yet none of their own children were with them. All the mothers were caring equally for all the children, secure in the knowledge that if their own child needed a diaper change, someone would do it -- because they would do the same for anyone else.
(Just for fun, look up the stats on marital fidelity in the Phillipines and see if the numbers bare out the assertion that women don't need a faithful man in more tribal settings.)
This has been a recurrent theme, lately. Even many atheists are caught in the myth that humans are now the way they have always been, and it just isn't so. Humans have existed in all kinds of mating arrangements through history, and it's only been in very recent history that we've become as insulated from each other as we are.
In human society, deviance can be measured in two ways: If there are social disincentives, we can compare behavior to the norm, or if we have data on positive and negative consequences of behavior, we can say that deviant behavior is that which is harmful to society.
Unmarried men who have multiple partners could be considered deviant if they knowingly spread STDs, or if they have fathered multiple children whom they do not support. Married men who sleep around are considered deviant by virtue of breaking their sworn vows.
I've noticed that most of the women I've known consider men to be scumbags if they lie about their promiscuity.
This part is quite true. In a society that teaches that strict monogamy is the human norm, men must act differently than they truly feel. (The other part of this is that men's chemistry literally changes when they are content with their current mating arrangement, so there is a very real explanation for why men's libido changes when they get married. As far as I know, this change is not dependent on monogamy, but rather, long term contentment.)
The good news is that most of my educated female friends are very aware of what human nature is, and don't have any misunderstandings about what their men feel. They just ask for a particular set of actions, which is pretty reasonable, if you ask me.
As Tilberian and I have been hashing out in the marriage thread, humans are mildly polygamous, tending towards serial monogamy, which means that relationships will mostly be monogamous, and will mostly be at least relatively long term. I'm not aware of any period in history where women have consistently formed long bonds with multiple males. Even in polygamous societies, the men have formed long bonds with all of their wives/concubines. So, prolonged promiscuity does not appear to have ever been the norm in human history.
Not exactly right, but not completely wrong, either. Not to offend, but unless I mistake what you mean by pussy whipping, there are myths inherent in that term, too -- many of them quite sexist. There are many egalitarian cultures in which monogamy is agreed upon and desired by both partners. The part where you're right is that in Western Christian culture, we have built many layers of trickery into mating, based on the notions of purity, virginity, and repression, none of which seem to be intrinsic to our nature.
It's not necessarily a given that men are promiscuous in most other cultures, at least not from the point of view of women! It's true that in all cultures, men are promiscuous, but the social views about whether they should be have varied widely.
"Should" and "are" are very, very different, and discussing human sexuality, we are constantly bombarded with "shoulds" where we they ought to be "ares," and vice versa. Unlike many other species, in humans, we don't have the same clear line of female selection that we see so often in the animal kingdom. In most egalitarian societies, selection is at least partially mutual, where males do not necessarily mate with females that select them. The dynamics of the competition between and for mates are a LOT more complicated because of this.
Well, I agree that it's a bad idea for an atheist to marry a Christian, but for different reasons. It's my humble opinion that unless you intend to remain faithful to one woman, it's a lie to say the vow at the ceremony, so why bother?
It was more about property than mating with outsiders. Women were part of a man's property, so if a man slept with another man's wife, it was essentially theft, or maybe vandalism. The only way to be sure that a child was yours was to make sure the woman didn't have sex with anyone else.
(Notice that there are no proscriptions against lesbianism in the bible?)
I don't think it's quite as clear cut as this, but certainly control of sexuality was part of a larger system of control of the individual by the state, which was something of a new concept.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Sexual repression is mostly a religious thing. Why do you have to tag American onto both options? I've traveled most of the world and have seen nothing to lead me to believe that Americans are any more or less sexually repressed than any other place on the globe once you remove religion.
Again I have a problem with you using "America" as one big blanket to cover what you've read happens here. America is one mighty big place with every possible point of possiblity being covered by many, many people. We do have sexually repressed people here. But so does Australia and every other country in the world. Some ass holes in America have a problem with homosexuality, but then again that's not the official "American" position. I know for a fact that there are many, many people in Australia that also feel homosexuality is a problem. Are you suggesting America is the only place with fucked up people?
This Atheist likes sex. This atheist isn't into sex involving urine, feces, vomit, animals or children. This Atheist isn't attracted to the same sex but doesn't begrudge those that are. This Atheist is attracted to long legged women that know how to be naughty on occassion. Attitude can never be underestimated in its sexual attraction.
I'm fairly sure that you will get many different answers from different Atheists.
Good for you Nick. How very cosmopolitan of you.
Very bad Nick. Rampant? Based on what do you deem anything "rampant" in America?
Why do you insist on using such a wide brush to insult Americans? While sexual repression may "run rampant" in religious communities. Very few religious communities make up an entire community or country for that matter. Where is Australia's Las Vegas? Where is Australia's Times Square? Where is Australia's Southern California? Where is Australia's Betty Page? Where is Australia's porn industry?
Mitt Romney is a mormon running for President of the United States of America. He is trying to appeal to a very powerful portion of voters. He is also an idiot. That portion of Americans does not constitute all of America and suffice it to say that most of the rest of the people in America can't stand that portion of our country's citizen's opinions. While you're watching your source of information on America try finding something on Barack Obama. Try to find something being said by him or anyone that supports him, or the Demcratic Party, that supports your absurd blanket statments about Americans and repression of any kind much less sexual.
While I'm sure Australia does have it's own television industry I can't speak on it as I don't recall watching anything over there other than news and sports. I don't work for Hollywood so don't feel qualified to give much of a response to this. In general though I believe that most programs are without merit of any kind. For the most part, killing your television would be a good thing period.
I recall several very violent scenes in Sin City. I don't recall many sex scenes. I'm fairly sure the violence earned the R rating it was blessed with.
What the hell is wrong with NickB? America is far from perfect but until you point out the perfection homeland you can shut the fuck up about America.
What the hell is wrong with some specific people that happen to live in America? Would have been such a better question.
It sure would have been nice if you had refrained from posting all the other shit you did and stuck with this single, very relevant question.
Greetings NickB from Australia. You live in a very beautiful and wonderful country, from what little I saw. Almost all the people I met there were very friendly. The few people I got into discussions with involving politics were very polite in seperating specific people from the country they resided in or may have represented.
Respectfully,
Lenny
"The righteous rise, With burning eyes, Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies, To beat and burn and kill"
Witch Hunt from the album Moving Pictures. Neal Pert, Rush
I've pretty much decided that sexuality is the most misunderstood concept in the world.
I'm not going to begin to say I have all the answers, but I do have some of them, primarily because I believe in the power of science, and I believe scientific studies of what we do, rather than hack philosophers and religious nuts who tell us what we should do.
In America, we do have an inordinate political obsession with people's private sexual habits. We do have an inordinately high level of sexual crimes. We do have an unusually high level of 'group moral outrage' at nudity and depictions of sexuality, when compared to other post-industrial nations.
The flip side of this is that we also have an incredible percentage of the world's porn production and consumption, although it's debatable whether this represents a dysfunction or not.
We have a disturbing rate of teen pregnancy, STDs, and a disturbingly low rate of condom use in all age groups.
Most studies I'm aware of have positively correlated repression with sexual dysfunction and societal dysfunction. When we compare statistics, I think it's fair to say that among the world's most advanced nations, we Americans (as a group, with all apologies to open-minded individuals) are both more obsessed and misinformed about human sexuality than many other nations. Exactly what this represents is not perfectly clear.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Wow here we go again, people starting arguments for no reason.
I am talking about sexual repression specifically in America, I am not talking about sexual repression in Afghanistan, Australia, China, Japan or Iraq. I am interested in knowing about sexual repression specifically in America. I want to know why it is so bad there in comparison to most if not all other Christian countries. To me it is an interesting subject. If I am talking out sexual repression as it applies to America why would I want to refer to other countries?
Try and grasp this concept, I want to know about sexual repression as it refers to America specifically. You seem like a person that has a little trouble understanding things so I will explain it one more time in simple terms.
1. Sexual repression happens all over the world
2. Sexual repression happens in America
3. I want to know about sexual repression specifically in America.
How are you doing? Manage to get your head around that?
It is my fault really; I should have expected some overly patriotic idiot was going to take offense to the suggestion that America is not a perfect nation.
I think the moment I mentioned America you stopped paying attention and you made up your little mind. You said 'The bad, bad Australia man say bad tings about my America, must stop him now' then you abandoned all logic and launched an attack...... how very American of you.
I spend a lot of time doing business in America and I enjoy the country very much. I dislike some of the people, people like you, but ey I dislike Australians like you too.
Oh and I never asked about your sex life nor do I care of your interest in fetishes. In fact the very idea of you having the chance of reproducing both frightens and repulses me.
P.S. I know this post is an overreaction but considering your overreaction..... it’s only fair.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
Nice summation man.
I think the porn industry may actully be a product of the sexual repression. It makes sense that being so repressed some people act out in ways people in less represed countries do not. What do you think about that?
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
Like that time a pastor was found dead by erotic asphicsiation, wearing 2 wet suits, and an over sized dildo up his ass?... find me some one in another country that would do that >.>
What Would Kharn Do?
You definitely spell out your question better but it's also different. In your initial post you asked if something was American or Christian American. Which is a very different thing from asking about sexual repression in America. Do you see the difference? Maybe I'm not being clear enough in pointing out the differences between what you wrote.
I'm pretty sure I didn't claim America was perfect. I don't believe it is perfect so if I managed to convey that impression excuse my Americanism. I believe that there is no place that is perfect. As it relates to your original question I have a problem with someone implying that sexual repression should be lain at the feet of ALL Americans.
Let me state again that I don't believe America is perfect. I don't believe any country is perfect. I do believe that using a wide brush to color all of any countries citizens anything is wrong.
I am merely trying to point out that it is wrong to assign any bad thing to an entire country's citizens. If you can't understand why that is then by all means. Make me out to be the "ugly American".
Yes, we know. You get paid to get men laid.
I'm not sure if I qualify as a General Atheist but figured I probably fit in that group somewhere so threw my two cents in. Sorry if it repulses you. Maybe you shouldn't have asked
I don't care for bigots, whether they are bigoted against a persons race, sex, age, abilities or country. I percieved your original post/question as being bigoted against Americans. I have no doubt I would have posted the same if it had been blaming sexual repression on any other country in the world.
Respectfully,
Lenny
"The righteous rise, With burning eyes, Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies, To beat and burn and kill"
Witch Hunt from the album Moving Pictures. Neal Pert, Rush
In my initial post I asked about sexual repression in America specifically not about sexual repression in other countries. I had to dumb it down a little for you but it seems that everybody else was able to understand what I wrote. Nobody else complained about bigotry or started bitching. I never once said that all American citizens are sexually repressed. You just used your small mind to reach an idiotic assumption and you ran with it.
I also never asked about the general atheist’s sex life. In fact I made that pretty clear, I wanted to know what the general atheist thought about the topic of sex.
I also missed the part of my post in which I say that you said you think America is perfect. I mean call me crazy but I do not remember writing that. I do however remember saying that you lost self control when you saw me suggest America is not perfect. Again call me crazy but I think those two things are a little different.
Oh and no I do not get men laid for money I said I use to charge men to teach them how to pick-up women. I also referred to it in the past tense a few times which again suggests it’s something I use to do. I quit that 3 years ago, I was only 17, now I do real business in America. I have a hunch that you are not bothering to actually read anything thoroughly.
I do not care for bigots either, I also do not care for ignorant people who only see what they want to see and overreact because of it. In the spirit of not wasting my time on people like you I will leave you be. You can post back but I won’t reply so I’d say it really isn’t worth your time to reply. It will be interesting however to see if your sense of inadequacy will force you to retaliate once more just to prove yourself to everybody or if you can actually be a man and leave it at that.
P.S. I do not need to paint you as being the 'ugly American' you are doing a fine job of it yourself.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
I'm truly stunned at the level of animosity in this thread. Are we interested in truth, or winning?
There are answers. Anyone who is interested could ask, and someone would offer a number of scientific resources for evaluating America's sexual health.
Perhaps people just want to be right, and aren't concerned with whether or not they are accurate.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
The guy calls me a bigot and rants about stuff that is off-topic. What am I meant to do, say thanks? I hate it when people who have no clue what they are talking about start ranting and raving over what is essentially nothing.
Anyway I think I done the right thing by saying I would no longer reply to his post and I will stick to that.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
Sigh.... And to think this could have gone a whole diferent way if this would have happend instead:
"Subdi Visions: Hey NickB, I think you're unfairly overgeneralizing in your use of the word "America"
NickB: I didn't mean all you americans are indoctrinated to be afraid of sex, I just wanted to know specifically about America and the indoctrination of fear/repulse of sex that goes on there.
Subdi Visions: Ok, just so you be more clear next time". Period. Moving on.
At least that's the impresion I get from Subdi_Visions' belligerent response, and if so he had a point, to be fair, he just commited the same mistake he was pointing out. And to be even more fair, and I'm sorry to say this but that is the impresion you get of America when you're looking from outside of it's borders (I'm a little south of them myself). The impression of a sex obssesed country, indoctrinated to be afraid of their own natural sex impulses. Proof of this I hear you ask? Well, what kind of impression do you want the world to get from a country whose Surgeon General is fired just because she suggested masturbation should be taught?
Now, just to avoid any more screw yous being tossed around: I am not claiming all americans are indoctrinated to be afraid of their crotches.
Lenore, The Cute Little Dead Girl. Twice as good as Jesus.
Good point Albedo_00, thanks for the thoughtful input.
I can be too passionate about a few things. I'm going to printout your reply and place it next to my monitor. Hopefully it will remind me not to tred down this particularly unproductive path again.
Respectfully,
Lenny
"The righteous rise, With burning eyes, Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies, To beat and burn and kill"
Witch Hunt from the album Moving Pictures. Neal Pert, Rush
Happens to the best of us mate, hell I should know.
Lenore, The Cute Little Dead Girl. Twice as good as Jesus.
Written quickly, so here it goes.. blah. I need to get off RSS. Makes me feel uncomfortable
.
Disclaimer: Apologies for the tone. Yet, I'm becoming more and more annoyed by the tone of what.. as Hammy rightly puts, should be conversations about learning or discussing. So what do I do when I get annoyed with the tone? Well.. I pick it up. First, let me give my reasons why first. Here are some quotes:
In response to the "over-reaction" which was this:
And then it goes on.
For clarification, I definitely agree with this post:
But, since the actual substantive matter of the original post made me want to question the possibility of any real relevance with the question or any possible value could come from an answer, I continue with my definite over-reaction. Then again, it might just be because I'm sexually repressed. But if that's so.. then what explains the ops over-reaction? Hm.. must be the opposite.
So, with that, I continue:
What the heck is going on in this thread? This is the first time I've run through.. why exactly did Subdi back down? Sure it could of gone better.. but NickB's post was ridiculous.
While this was in regards to Mitt's speech (which I though was incredible ridiculous as well).
First off.. just to put some statistics that I picked up with a quick search.
http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide_rates/en/index.html
http://www.world-youth-studies.com/teenage_pregnancy_statistics.htm
http://www.avert.org/stdstatisticsworldwide.htm
http://www.avert.org/stdstatisticusa.htm
That was just to pick off a few..
The reason I find it so ridiculous is that any attempt to connect what some call "sexual repression" to "societal ills" would be such an ill-conceived idea as to never really allows for a conclusion of causation. There are, IMO, just to many variables involved in the calculus.
It like me saying this..
US has 19 infected adults per 1000 and sub-saharan has 119? Must be the heat. Australia has 27 per 1000? Wow.. that's higher than US. Must be their political discourse. Latin America has 71 per 1000? Must be because of their educational system. Eastern and Central Europe have 29 per 1000? Must be because most of them were communist at some point...
Australia has an equivalent suicide rate per 100000 as the US? Must be because they both have european roots. Austria has a suicide rate of 26.1 per 100000 to US 17.4, hmm.. must be because of WWII.
What?! Japan has the lowest teen pregnancy rate? It must be because they have a history of sexual repression and conservatism.
Anyone of these differences could be equally equated with socio-economic conditions. Does that mean its the cause? Psh..
Yah.. America does have a big problem with homosexuality. Big problem. Like.. the majority of people. I would love to see upon what your feeling is based upon.. or is it just your general impression while watching will&grace or the Lword on network or cable television.
Ah.. good point. Still.. I would love to see those studies which support your assertion that in america sexual repression runs rampant. Even if a study does say it.. in ORDER to say it, we would have to assume there is a baseline from which to judge "repression" and "non-repression." The whole idea is absurd on a categorical level. Individually? Maybe.. go up to person A and say, your problems are derived from sexual repression. Fix it.
Psh..
I would like to see those statistics... although, fair to say, that "as a whole" maybe they are better in these areas. I don't know, I don't care to combine all the numbers. I just posted the statistics showing that there is vast differences between all those categories depending upon WHICH country of europe you are talking about. Yah.. but Mitt is crazy, bunching all of Europe together when clearly, economically, it is doing better then America at the moment. As for any "moral crisis"--well, each person judges that for himself.
Valid argument.
Invalid assertion. Once again, facts, not naked assertions. Furthermore, considering all of europe as a whole based upon "sexual openess" of Europe merely confuses the issue (more than it was before). Why should we consider Europe as a whole based upon sexual openess when individual countries with their own identities have their own policies on the matter? Move that logic farther, why not cities, or communities, ... wait.. why not by the person?
Sexual openness of country 1 = 100%, population 100million. Societal health = 80%
Sexual openness of country 2 = 0%, population 10 million. Societal health = 90%
Country 1 and 2 = Europe.
Sexual openness of Europe "as a whole" = 90%. Population 110million. Societal health = 81%.
Wow... according to these statistics.. Europe "as a whole" is both more sexually open and has a pretty darn good overall health. It must be because they are sexually open...
Yah, that is funny. Hilarious. I for one, sure know that the most representative sample of American men are those that pay to learn how to get "hot" women interested in them.
To get back to the idea of sexual repression in America...
My philosophy is that this stems from the fact that we are a "Christian" nation. Now bear with me for a minute. Yes, we are all entitled to religious freedom, the Constitution calls for separation of church and state, blahblahblah.. BUT the majority of Americans who identify with a religion identify with some sect of Christianity.
Even though politically we are a secular nation, socially we are a Christian nation, because the majority of people are indoctrinated with Christian dogma in their youth. A lot of people grow up to be "non-religious" - basically atheists, if they would actually really think about the issue - which means that, yeah they were taught about Christianity, but they really don't see why their lives should be dictated by silly rules. A lot of people grow up and have sex before they're married, or look at porn, etc. BUT because of what they learned as a kid, this always has a certain stigma associated with it. It's something that they want to do, because of their biological nature, but they can never totally quash that voice in the back of their head saying "this is a sin."
On top of that, even other major religions that are practiced in the US, such as Judaism and Islam, also call for "sexual purity" in their texts, so there is an interreligious consensus on this issue. Basically, everybody is brought up being told not to have sex.
Now, American sexual repression is unique because of the combination of forces within its borders. Today, there are the rap and hip hop subcultures that generally tend to promote sleeping around, and generally feature very sexually explicit lyrics. There are movies that depict sex between unmarried people, and television shows that depict one-night stands. The origin of these phenomena seems to be here in America (correct me if I'm wrong). These cultural phenomena have generated a backlash from the more conservative, fundamental followers of religion, who claim that these types of music and movies are not in accordance with Biblical law, and that they are furthermore influencing the behavior of others, most especially young people - which is correct to some degree, although it brings up the age-old question "does life imitate art, or does art imitate life?"
Because of the trends, very religious people are even MORE determined to avoid this "heathen culture" and to make sure their kids avoid it too. They are not shy about their position, and will shout it to anyone withing earshot (or now, with the advent of the internet, within click-shot?) They view these music and movies as a direct attack on their religion, and because they feel threatened, they fight back even harder by telling their kids that they're going to hell if they partake in supporting these cultural aspects, if they engage in premarital sex, if they look at porn, if they feel gay tendencies... basically, anything that violates the Bible.
So what we have is a movement to avoid sexual immorality in direct opposition to popular culture, and essentially, in direct opposition to human biological tendencies and urges. This movement causes people to feel guilty about their actions, whether they are religious or not, and to hide their "sins." Thus, people who are sexually promiscuous are not comfortable talking about sex in general company because of the stigma associated with it.
That is my general take on it.
Alright.. I rescind all that stuff I said in the earlier post and now throw my two cents in with the Greek's post. It seems reasonable to me.
As for my post, sorry.. I was just a bit irritable and, in anycase, a combination of my irritability together with my general skepticism towards the social sciences may not have been the best circumstance from which to write.
I could sit here and spend 1hr Googling for statistics and addressing all your points but it’s a waste of my time. I made this thread because I want to know more about sexual repression in America, I do not want to debate if it is sexual repression that leads to increased violence in America. Believe it or not I am not here to debate, I value my time and I do not waste it on fruitless endeavours like arguing with strangers online.
Can I link you to the studies and statistics that form my opinion? Well no I cannot, see I do not base my beliefs on what comes up in a Google search...... it seems like you do though. I have an abundance of free time on my hands; I mean I have weeks in which I have nothing to do. Sometimes in that free time if I am interested in learning more about a subject I will jump on a plane and go see an expert in the field. I am sure I have seen statistics online at some point but I do not base my opinions on said statistics and I do not have any at hand. My opinions are based on personal experience and extensive research; yours seem to be based on an internet search engine.
Oh and no, I do not base my opinion of gay people on Will & Grace, in fact I haven’t really watched television in two years. I base my opinion of gay people on the gay people I know.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
If it would've taken you an hour.. then yes, it would've been a waste of time.
Ah. True. You're original post did have the question "why?" I guess I could have just ignored all the assertions made in the thread itself and the following posts..
Ah.. I suppose that's a good thing. You certainly don't value it enough to keep from responding with substantively empty posts.
Yes. Yes I do. Because that is what was going on here. I was making a statement of belief that had just been conjured up based on a moment's google search.
Congratulations.
Why didn't you jump on a plane to learn about "sexual repression in america" then? or call them... definitely would be more efficient in many respects.
Yes. Because my point was to say that you base your "opinions" on said statistics. Yes.
Yes. My beliefs are based off an internet search. Yes.
Yes... because that is what I was saying.. that you base your opinion of *gay people* on will and grace.
Alright.. so now, to summarize. I would care much less about your opinion Nick. What I addressed were your *statements of fact*. Such as.. "america has higher rates of AIDS, STDS, suicide, etc..."
So.. I addressed that statement of fact, which I felt might be misleading.
Furthermore, assertions such as, "americans have problems with homosexuality". Or something similiar. It is an assertion, toes the line of a statement of fact-- there is no qualifier, no limiting words, no "I think" or "I opine"-- nothing. So, I wanted clarification and therefore, clearly asked upon what you based the assertion. Was it feeling? or was it watching one of the many top rated american televisions shows which happen to center around homosexuality? as a group.. I *don't think* that americans have that much of a problem with homosexuality.
I do not simply base my opinions on statistics I find on the internet. I am not privy to information on how the statistics are gathered so I don't know if the statistics are reliable.
All the assertions I made are based on what I know to be fact. Now you can try and refute that fact by doing a Google search but to what end? I will not agree anything you give me is valid since I have done research that extends far beyond typing a word and pressing search.
I have to ask, do you have an actual purpose here? If you disagree with my 'assertions' why not be a man about it and approach the situation with a little grace? You could have said:
"Hey I think you are wrong about those statistics, I Googled for more information and I found this www......"
Instead you thought it best to start an argument. It's a little sad.
Look I could not be botherd with this anymore, have fun picking apart my post. However I suggest you find something a little better to do with your life.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
[edited for content]
Good point. Sounds sort of like the one I made when posting about statistics.
That sounds like an assertion to me.
Oh yes yes. So have I.. In fact.. right now I'm sitting in a WHO committee meeting, learning about the spread of STDs in Timbucktoo. This is a fact. I've done research that extends far beyond what I am typing here. It is fact, not an assertion, that what I am saying is fact. Do not argue with it. Do not try to question what I am saying.
Merely to address what I felt was an ill-conceived post.
A man about it? Psh. In any case, as I stated at the beginning, I was a bit annoyed with [how the thread was going and what I felt was baseless attacking of another individual.] To me, it seemed as though you were being a petulant individual who personally attacks other individuals and [then claims it was] "justified" because "he started it." Well.. okay.. by that logic.. I'm justified.
Yah I know. Imagine that? I thought it best to start an argument in a forum called atheist v. theist. I thought it proper to address naked assertions or question statement of facts.
Hey don't worry.. I'm doing quite fine at the moment. In fact, I'm merely making this post in between tea and crumpets with the President of the European Union. Waitwait.. but don't question that clearly unnecessary suggestion about my personal life that might otherwise seem impressive if it wasn't posted on a forum where it really is quite pointless and ridiculous in most cases..
I found Nicks's original post to be offensive and took exception. Nick responded with personal attacks instead of addressing what I commented on. I've found over the years of communicating on forums like these that with people who "debate" by attacking the responder instead of what is "said" there is no winning/losing or anything. It's totally a waste of time and energy. I will try to keep an open mind about any further posts made by Nick. Communicating on forums is a tricky thing. It's easy to take things out of context.
I admire those individuals that can overlook the offensive and find meaning from some of the posts made on this board. I've picked up some very valid and worthy input from some people on this thread alone.
And I appreciate your posts as now I know I'm not the only one to find some of the things Nick has posted as being fairly offensive.
In any event, have a great day folks.
Respectfully,
Lenny
"The righteous rise, With burning eyes, Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies, To beat and burn and kill"
Witch Hunt from the album Moving Pictures. Neal Pert, Rush
As an addendum, I hope none of you will be offended (yeah, right) to learn that I've catalogued this whole damn conversation for my own writing, which, if you haven't noticed, is primarily involved with human instinct, socialization, and sexuality.
If I ever need anectodal evidence that people are exceptionally sensitive about sex, I'm just going to reprint this whole thing.
Just for fun, how about this. Everyone go back and review the thread. Count how many posts present facts -- even unsubstantiated facts -- and then count how many are just bitching.
Frankly, I'm disappointed in the whole thread. There was a chance for everyone to learn from the others, and instead, it deteriorated into a shouting match and nobody learned anything of value about human sexuality -- only about how quickly people bristle at the discussion.
If any of you are actually interested in learning FACTS from SCIENCE, I've been doing an ongoing series, which you can find HERE. It's going to have quite a few parts when its done, including the best factual data I can find about practice, repression, and expression in America and abroad.
If only you'd quit bitching at each other and asked someone who knows about it, you might have learned something. It's possible, though, that gaining knowledge is not always as much fun as fighting.
Shame.
P.S. For the record, factually, in the OP, I can only find statements that need clarification and possibly restatement. I don't see any blatant falsehoods. I do have the background to make this statement. I was going to help with this thread, but now you have to wait for the book.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Ahh Hammy. Always graceful in your application of wisdom to errant threads. (This is sincere, not sarcastic.. so don't take it that way).
p.s. Indeed, factual misrepresentation came later. Naked assertions and poisoning the well questions came before. As for "learning" about sexual repression. Like I said before, I'm merely a bit skeptical about the social sciences in general. Psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc. etc. Granted, some good may come from it, however, I feel many times it just a shotgun approach.
Ahem. Btw, your link is working.. at least not for me. Ahem. Also, linguistical clarification, "facts" don't come "from science"--science uses "facts." (Feel free to disagree with this point, I will qualify it it with "my understand of the word facts and the nature of science would lead me to say..."
Lastly, if I had not been irritable to begin with when I came to this thread (which I admitted early on) I probably would addressed the op on its own level. Yet, the question seemed to easy to answer, even though it would probably be difficult to prove to a scientific certainity.
For instance. Why is their sexual repression in america? A: If there is sexual repression in america, its puritanical roots and vocal religious interest groups are probably a major factor in it. (Which, in the language of the op, could probably be regarded an "american" thing (e.g. puritanical roots and vocal religious interest groups). That is not to say that these things are purely american, the roots, or that the sexual repression, if existent, can only be caused by it).
In anycase, fix the link, or, better direct me there.. I look forward to reading it.
Look under my author section on the sidebar. I'll see if I can fix the link in any case.
It is a fact that according to the U.S. census, X% (I don't recall) of marriages ended in divorce, or that X% of people reported infidelity, etc... It is a fact that fossils have been found that date back to X period, and that they show Y characteristics, etc...
We can use this factual data to form scientific explanations, which are not facts. I'm still deciding whether you're trying to push my buttons or if you just don't recall that I know my terminology very well. You have been gone a while, and you did sincerely compliment me, so I'm going to assume you forgot.
Wow. It's probably the most complicated question I know of in the social sciences: What does it mean to be a human sexual animal?
Sexual repression, if it can be truly quantified, is not unique to America, to be certain. Some elements of it are, I believe with near certainty, uniquely pronounced in America. For instance, we're the only post-industrial, non-theocracy (yeah, right...) that doesn't teach children about condoms, and insists on abstinance until marriage.
Feh... Here it is again...
On Myth, Sexuality, and Culture
There are child pages at the bottom, and the whole thing is a work under construction, so forgive some repetition and occasional typos, etc..
Hopefully in a week or so, I'll have the next essay ready, on what humans do, as opposed to what they say they ought to do. It will also include some anthropological stuff about our best estimates of what people have done in the past.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Kind of a mixture of both I suppose.
I can agree, obviously, that it is a fact that the US Census reported X% marriages ended in divorce. My only implication was whethere it is actually a fact that X% of marriages actually end in divorce or whether only X% were willing to admit it. True, the statistics for divorce might not be as subject to misunderstandings or lieing.. but questions like "Have you ever cheated on your significant other?" I would probably be more skeptical about.
Yes Hammy, though, I know you know your terminology.
Exactly what I was thinking/saying...maybe. Heh, in anycase, I look forward to reading your essay when I got some time.
The U.S. is damn efficient in its record keeping. We can be remarkably certain that the marriage/divorce records are pretty accurate.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
That's why I specifically qualified my statement regarding statistics concerning divorce rates. There wouldn't seem to be as many problems with the accuracy of this statistic since the government actually defines marriage, has an interest in its accurate record keeping, and actually has the final word regarding whether you a couple IS actually divorced or not.
Whether the government should actually have that power or not.. is another matter.
On the subject of divorce I always found it interesting to consider how many marriages would also end in divorce if not for the benefit of the children. Even though it is impossible I would love to see statistics on how many marriages turn into unhappy marriage.
The idea of marriage is freighting and I think some true statistics would be even more freighting. This is pure speculation on my part but I think the percentage of unhappy marriages are somewhere up in the 80% range or higher.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
Divorce rates are directly related to legality of divorce and how socially acceptable it is to get divorced.
Everyone who believes this is impossible to track, step forward.
NOT SO FAST, NICK!!!
The landmark study on this was done based on the notion that the 50s were proof of the concept that the monogamous, single marriage, early marriage, 2.5 child family could be enforced.
The rate of divorce during the 50s was the lowest ever in the U.S., and childbirth was the highest since the Depression. In other words, damn near everyone was married, with children.
During this time, reputable and statistically relevant (anonymous, for obvious reasons) polls found that 20% of all couples considered their marriages unhappy, and another 20% reported 'medium happiness.' (It must be kept in mind that female marital unhappiness was often treated with shock therapy -- electrocution! -- so the category of medium happiness must be taken with a grain of salt.) It's not a very well known fact, but human tranquilizers were invented in the 50s, specifically to combat "female trouble." Tranquilizer consumption was virtually nonexistent in 1955, and then reached 1.15 million pounds in 1959. This correlated with a drastic increase in female alcoholism which was well hidden for fear of social reprisal, but nevertheless, has more than convincing documentation.
Probably most telling, there was a common social idiom invented in the 50s by women -- 'the four bs of motherhood' -- booze, bowling, bridge, and boredom. By 1960, almost every major news journal was using the word "trapped" to describe the feelings of the American housewife. For instance, a Redbook editorial asked readers to provide examples of "Why Young Mothers Feel Trapped." They received 24,000 replies.
The most telling factor in all of this is the impact of the 50s marriage boom on the divorce rate. Contrary to popular opinion, the drastic rise in the divorce rate following the womens' liberation movement was not due primarily to a drastic rise in disgruntled young women leaving their new husbands for sexual liberation. It was the mass exodus of women who had gotten married in the 50s divorcing their husbands as soon as the children left the house!
I don't have the stats in front of me, but it's been extremely well documented that it's a bad idea to stay married for the sake of the kids. To put it briefly (and generally), single parent status alone is not a predictor of adolescent or early adulthood dysfunction. Single parent status only becomes a notable factor (and even then, not a major one!) when poverty is thrown into the mix. In addition, adolescent and early adulthood dysfunction has been positively linked with a combative or cold family environment where the parents obviously don't love each other anymore.
In other words, it's better to be a single parent or to remarry than to stay married for the kid's sake.
In general, taking the "honeymoon phase" out of marriage, significantly less than 50% of married couples call themselves happily married. That is to say, only a couple where both members anonymously check "Happily married" counts as happily married. The incidence of men checking "happily" and women checking "moderately" or less is high. I don't have the exact number in front of me.
William Chafe, The American Woman: Her Changing Social, Economic, and Political Roles, 1920-1970, (New York: Oxford, 1974)
Steven D. McLaughlin et al., The Changing Lives of American omen, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988)
Glenna Mathews, "Just a Housewife": The Rise and Fall of Domesticity in America (New York: Oxford, 1987)
Stephanie Coontz, The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap, (Basic Books, 2000 edition)
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Now.. do these studies use the american unit of happiness? or the european? Because if "medium happiness" refers to anywhere in between 50-100 uhp (units of happiness) as opposed to 25.4-28 mhp^2 (happiness metric squared) then I would find the the statisticals findings much more surprising.