Nuance, sensitivity about ideal sex from sex god Ross Douthat

7 Mar

Today we have Ross Douthat from the NYTimes getting all conservative-orgasmy over the study that just came out saying American teenagers are fucking less than they used to.

Rather than examine this study, or even talk about it again in the column, Douthat skips over that task and just points back to the Mark Regnerus book about how pre-marital sex is ruining society. It’s so much easier! (Basically no one in the world is as good at selling books as Regnerus.) And it tells us what we have always known: slutty women are miserable.

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.

I did a takedown of the crap logic in the recent Slate article that Regnerus penned based on his research, and another one about his findings here. Basically Regnerus seeks to blame social breakdown on how women sleep around and supposedly make themselves miserable in the process since they can’t lock that husband shit down, etc. Anecdotal life evidence should also suggest to a sane person that he’s full of shit.

Douthat, like Regnerus, seems to want to locate the problems of modern sexuality with women’s choices. Why? I don’t know. Douthat has already written about his disgust at trying to have sex with a girl on birth control. Meanwhile, he was also in the room at the time.

Douthat has been celebrated for being a conservative who shows an ability to understand complexity, which is kind of like getting a prize for being the best 16-year-old reader in your third-grade classroom. He works very hard at showing liberals he understands them while ultimately coming to the same conclusion as other conservatives. I guess that’s sort of a talent? Here he is at the end of the column, patiently explaining to the libtard NYTimes readers why those wacko conservatives want to shutter Planned Parenthood:

Liberals argue, not unreasonably, that Planned Parenthood’s approach is tailored to the gritty realities of teenage sexuality. But realism can blur into cynicism, and a jaded attitude can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Social conservatives look at the contemporary sexual landscape and remember that it wasn’t always thus, and they look at current trends and hope that it doesn’t have to be this way forever.

See, cynical liberals? Conservatives are really just trying to responsibly encourage everyone to live up to ideals, to conservative ideals, which are the best ideals, the only ideals. Screw plurality. Wait, don’t.

2 Responses to “Nuance, sensitivity about ideal sex from sex god Ross Douthat”

  1. Fire Tom Friedman March 7, 2011 at 3:30 pm #

    Fantastic post. I’ve been reading Douthat criticism all day in order to work off my fury at that horrible column (OK, I’m lying – I do it to make myself even angrier), and this sums up Douthat better than anything I’ve read.


  1. Women have more degrees, blah blah, this is about men « pukingponies - April 27, 2011

    […] the people who are paid to be insane about women’s advancement are still in their caves still busily formulating some kind […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: