1

One interesting note: most of the European countries you reference (except Germany) have official state churches. This would seem to reinforce my belief that when churches have government sanctioning, people take them less seriously.

Where you see this as a sign of declining morality, I simply see it as a sign of changing morality. But that's to be expected, since I'm a moral relativist, and you're a moral absolutist.

I also suspect that in most of these cases, you could have substituted "sexual" with other types of behavior and gotten even lower numbers.

One interesting omission: our neighbors to the north. I wonder how they fared.

In any case, I suspect these survey results are mostly meaningless.

2

My guess is Canadian attitudes would have been more European than American, if the study were conducted up here in the cold North. But it would differ very, very much from province to province, with the Atlantic provinces holding marriage in the highest regard, followed by the prairie provinces and the northern territories, then by Ontario (where by far most of us live), with British Columbia and Quebec having the lowest regard for marriage.

3

I'm not sure of the order, Gideon. I'd bet that the prairies are more conservatives than the Maritimes; the prairies, and especially Alberta, are what passes for the Bible Belt in Canada.

I'd expect Alberta and Saskatchewan to be ahead of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick on their view of marriage.

4

59% percent of the British expect people to have 10 or more different lovers before they are married, but 89% of the British expect people to be monogamous after they're married.

But if you train yourself so intensively to be a slut, I wonder if it's so easy to stop by saying a few vows.

5

A couple of points:

1. The Chinese statistics likely reflect some
Confucian ethic among the population.

2. Sexual license seems to come and go in regular cycles. The 18th century was a time of great sexual license (remember Ben Franklin's out of wedlock kids?). Predictably, things went bad and the 19th century(Victorian age) was far more conservative. Sooner or later there will be a strong trend away from current attitudes. It's been delayed by the welfare state and modern medicine, but it will come.

6

wow, french bashing... how novel...

7

"my religious beliefs factor into my sexual behavior."

The question asks about "religious beliefs", but what about moral ones? Or isn't it possible to be moral without being religous?

8

"The question asks about "religious beliefs", but what about moral ones? Or isn't it possible to be moral without being religous?"

That's missing the point, I think. Few would deny that extramarital sexual activity is a moral choice--the question is whether your religious beliefs intrude upon the moral choice you're making. The person who engages in adultery is committing a (1) immoral act; or (2) a amoral act, depending on the absolute morality of adultery. But the issue is, does the person regard his religious faith, such as it is, to help him see the moral dimensions of his decision.

9

I'd be curious about a similar study that polled members of various faiths (including atheists) about the impact that their particular beliefs had on their sexual practices. I wouldn't be surprised if evangelical attitudes towards sex were not as influenced by their faith as one might think. As a single evangelical in my early 30s, I don't think my pursuit of sex is any less than my non-Christian friends. I'm pretty sure that among Christian men at least, attitudes about pre-marital sex are closely in line with non-Christians

10

I saw this post of yours as I was writing about tabula rasa and feminism on my blog. It's interesting to note how it's only in these "enlightened" times that more than a small number of people consider it normal and healthy to have affairs. 10 partners is also definitely beyond what could be reasonably considered "healthy" under most circumstances as well.

11

Ed writes

"59% percent of the British expect people to have 10 or more different lovers before they are married ... But if you train yourself so intensively to be a slut"

Good Lord. 10 lovers before marriage makes one a slut? I guess maybe if you get married when you're 16 you might have a point.

10 lovers before marriage means only that by the time you're married, you know what you like and what you don't like.

I guess I'm assuming that the idea of a woman enjoying sex isn't heretical. My bad.

12

"my religious beliefs factor into my sexual behavior."

My point is that they are asking only people who identify as "religious". What does that mean? Is that someone who goes to church every week or is it someone who goes once a year? Is it just people who's entire life revolves around their religion? Or is it someone who just grew up thinking thats what you do on a Sunday.

There are lots of people that would not identify themselves as "religious", even if they went to church regularly.

The other thing is that people are a lot less "religious" in Europe than in the United States. But that doesn't necessarily mean they sleep around more.

13

To Mark Byron:

I believe I saw a poll done for a politician sometime in the past year that suggested that on the issue of marriage, Maritime Canadians most fervently support life-long monogamous heterosexual marriages, with prairie folk a very, very close second. I don't know if the poll is publically available, and hey - my memory could be at fault! I'll see if I can find any evidence.

14

Larry Lord,

I guess I'm assuming that the idea of a woman enjoying sex isn't heretical.

I wasn't limiting my remarks to females, although I can understand why it seemed that way. Maybe my use of that term was uncharitable, anyway.

I still don't think that promiscuity is good training for monogamy.

15

Ed writes

"I still don't think that promiscuity is good training for monogamy."

Do you think that holding hands with someone for one year is good training for sleeping in the same bed with them for fifty years?

16

tgirsch

Where you see this as a sign of declining morality, I simply see it as a sign of changing morality. But that's to be expected, since I'm a moral relativist, and you're a moral absolutist.

I have never met a consistent moral relativist -- they all convert to moral absolutes as soon as someone cuts them off in traffic. 'Moral Relativism' may be a convenient cover for our own actions, but it loses convicition when someone else's actions affect me.

17

Gideon:

I would suspect that British Columbia outside of Metro Vancouver would also be very conservative on such issues.

Kevin W:

Your extramarital-sex-as-adultery logic only holds if you have a traditional Christian view of the matter. Many do not. I do not believe that extramarital sex is necessarily either amoral or immoral. If your relationships are monogamous and reasonably long-term, but you're not married per say, I don't see why that can't be construed as a moral arrangement.

Bevets:

I have never met two moral absolutists who agree on all aspects of what is and is not moral. Since their standards differ from individual to individaul, they are relativists whether they realize it or not.

18

I have never met two moral absolutists who agree on all aspects of what is and is not moral

That does not make them relativists. It just means that one or both have imperfect/incomplete/incorrect knowledge of the moral absolute.

19

I have never met a consistent moral relativist -- they all convert to moral absolutes as soon as someone cuts them off in traffic. 'Moral Relativism' may be a convenient cover for our own actions, but it loses convicition when someone else's actions affect me.

tgirsch

I have never met two moral absolutists who agree on all aspects of what is and is not moral. Since their standards differ from individual to individaul, they are relativists whether they realize it or not.

Reality does not depend on human confirmation nor is it determined by unanimous vote.

When two people disagree there are only four possibilities for determining what the truth is: Person A is right and Person B is wrong, Person A is wrong and Person B is right, Person A and Person B are both right, or Person A and Person B are both wrong. If both people are right or both people are wrong, it can only be because the argument was not sufficiently precise.

For example: If Person A says "The sky is blue" and Person B says "The sky is green", the only possibilities are a) The sky is blue b) The sky is green c) The sky is blue and the sky is green d) The sky is neither blue or green. If the true answer is either c or d, then the argument has not been stated with sufficient precision. To rectify this we could have Person A say "The sky is blue" and Person B say "The sky is not blue". The sky can not be 'blue' and 'not blue' in the same sense at the same time. If this were an actual possibility, all discourse would be meaningless, but this does not reflect life. If I point a gun at you and say "I am going to kill you now", you will want to know whether my statement is true or false. It would not occur to most people that the statement might be both true and false.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. ~ Philip Dick

20

Larry:

What is good training for monogomy?

Living together? Logical might say so but stats seem to show that doesn't work well at all.

But hey why have monogomy? If the Bible isn't your standard, then why try to live by it? If each of us are a standard to ourself then who can say someone is right or wrong? If the Bible is the standard then I think Ed has a point.

21

Bevets:

If both people are right or both people are wrong, it can only be because the argument was not sufficiently precise.

In any case, I still submit that all humans are moral relativists in practice, even if not in principle. This debate has been beaten to death elsewhere on this site, and we cannot hope for consensus on the matter.

22

Rick asks :

"What is good training for monogomy? Living together? Logical might say so but stats seem to show that doesn't work well at all."

I am not familiar with the stats but if you are relying on divorce statistics those are likely to be misleading because I suspect a significant fraction of people who believe it is improper to live together also believe that is improper to get a divorce, no matter how awful the marital relationship is.

But living together monogamously for a a few years before marriage certainly *is* good training for a monogamous marriage FOR SOME PEOPLE. Can there be any doubt that some divorces could have been prevented if only the people knew what to expect from each other before they got married?

23

"Naturally, the French hold a similarly low view of marriage with 20% of men and 17% of women agreeing that nothing is wrong with such infidelities."

A lower view? Certainly, a different view. How would you compare these marriages: one, a couple remains married for three years, no infidelity, they divorce; two, a couple is married for life, they both had affairs?

My vote is with the couple that hung in there, a la Jessica Tandy and Hume Cronyn.

24

"Can there be any doubt that some divorces could have been prevented if only the people knew what to expect from each other before they got married?"

Can there be any doubt that co-habitation does not invariably predict what marriage will be like?

25

tgirsch:

My guess is the same as yours - sexual mores in British Columbia outside of Vancouver are more "conservative." (Although, why do we use the word "conservative" for views that are pro-heterosexual, pro-monogamous, and pro-fidelity? My impression is that there is a kind of pendulum swing to sexual mores in most societies, and that historical "progressiveness" and "conservativeness" has nothing to do with the matter. I know that "social conservative" is probably a useful shorthand, with most North Americans knowing what they mean by it, but is the term true in any significant sense?)

26

TG:
"Many do not. I do not believe that extramarital sex is necessarily either amoral or immoral. If your relationships are monogamous and reasonably long-term, but you're not married per say, I don't see why that can't be construed as a moral arrangement."

You misunderstand me. Extramarital sex means that one or two of the actors is married to someone else. So how could such a relationship be monogamous, if one or both is married to another? My point is that the MOST you could say of the arrangement is that it is Amoral. And that implies that there's not a god in the heavens who cares.

27

Gideon:

You assume I was using "conservative" in the political sense, when I was actually using it in the more semantically correct sense, which means "traditional."

28

tgirsch:

Okay.

29

John "Azweepay" Braue writes:

"Can there be any doubt that co-habitation does not invariably predict what marriage will be like?"

Can there be any doubt that this is a strawman argument because no one here ever made the claim which you are questioning? Sheesh.