Upton Sinclair once said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.” Something similar can be said about people who discover that absolutely no one would ever sleep with them on the first date. They are easy to convince that they’ll be better off in the long-run, and that you’d be better off, too, if no one was attracted to you. So, David Brooks can dress up his call for chastity all he wants, but he’s really just wistfully wishing he could impose a nerdish Categorical Imperative on the world so he could feel like less of a loser.
As practical advice, he’s probably right that you shouldn’t hop in bed with someone you’re interested in long-term. But that’s not what he’s talking about when he says this:
Impulsive people might sleep with each other faster and also behave in other ways that damage relationships. On the other hand, if you took impulsive people and surrounded them in a culture that strongly discouraged bedding down on the first date, would this by itself improve relationship quality?
My guess is it would, at least a little, since strict social mores can reduce the effects of impulsive temperaments. The manners maketh the man—or the woman.
What he’s talking about is slut-shaming. And he’s motivated by the realization that even though there are plenty of sluts in the world, none of them are lining up to pleasure him. So, no one else should have a casual sexual encounter without suffering the effects of a strict and shaming culture coming down on them with a “tsk, tsk” or worse (a good stoning, perhaps?).
And this guy is everywhere in the media. What a mind! What a star!
As it appears the study was conducted by two professors at BYU, on would have to wonder if this might be a case of starting with a desired conclusion and parsing the data such that it supports your conservative premise, rather than looking at the whole data set objectively. After all, this is a university that has a policy which suspends students for having sex outside of marriage. Is there, then, maybe a possibility that the study might not be objective when it comes to matters of sex? Ya think?
One of the co-authors states, “…waiting helps the relationship form better communication processes, and these help improve long-term stability and relationship satisfaction,” I would question what data was used to reach that conclusion. How did they quantify something so seemingly subjective as the fact that it was the act of waiting which helped form better communication processes?
It just sounds as if this is another study sanctioned to promote a conservative viewpoint and wrapping it all up in the guise of being scientifically based. It is a classic conservative mirage to further their point of view. This is what passes for a rational scientific process in the conservative world. That would make it entirely reasonable for it to be something which would appeal to the likes of Mr. Brooks.
Slut-shaming is some of the most coded malicious sexism that’s out there, and a lot of people do it without realizing it.
I like open relationships; I like friends with benefits; I can handle those types of things. Many people cannot, and that’s cool. But I cannot stand the people who judge people like me and the women I sleep with because we’re “impulsive.” Fuck off.
The worst slut-shamers aren’t even the men, but the women. Of course I think that’s all the price of the patriarchy, but it’s still a consequence nonetheless.
The worst slut-shamers aren’t even the men, but the women.
If that’s the case BoBo, and Chunky BoBo(Ross Douthat for the uninitiated), are giving them a run for their money.
I have previously written to Brooksie to tell him that Bucky was disappointed in him and that numerous of his writings have caused Bucky to turn over in his grave. It’s crap like this that will make Bucky think he’s on a high-speed spit, rotating ever so much faster.
Brooksie isn’t fit to carry water for Bucky. How could Bucky have gone so wrong in this relationship?
OK, I gotta call bullshit. Brooks is acting like a prude, sure. But saying he’s motivated because nobody will sleep with him is just idiotic.
To pick only one random alternative explanation: there are plenty of people (I’m one) who conclude, after a whole lot of experience, that casual sex doesn’t work for them. It’s not much of a leap to conclude (which I haven’t) that it’s bad for everyone. (You go, seabe!)And conservatives like David Brooks are very, very generous about using thir own limited experience to tell other people how to live their lives.
Look, Brooks is a public figure. We may think we know politicians or pundits or sports figures, but we only know what they or their handlers choose to tell us (or what they get arrested for). Whenever I hear some wingnut pontificate confidently about Barack Obama’s personal motivations, I know the guy (or gal) is a lightweight.
Brooks spouts a staggering amount of nonsense, but we know even less about him personally than we do about Obama. You’re better than this, Boo.
Brooks spouts a staggering amount of nonsense, but we know even less about him personally than we do about Obama.
Really? We know that Brooks lies in his columns, or is at least very disingenuous. We know he’s been on the wingnut welfare gravy train before. Sure, we don’t know whether he ever got laid in college. Or why he has sexual hangups for. But we know a lot.
Have you concluded that slut-shaming is best for everyone and their long-term prospects for monogamous happiness?
Because David Brooks has not only concluded that but he’s written about it in the New York Times.
I’m not suggesting that I know the number of his sexual conquests or how long he fought to win the prize. I am just suggesting that he’s a loser who no one would sleep with on the first date, because it’s obvious and because that’s why he’s the special kind of moron that he is.
Brooks is ridiculous. period.
The fact that Brooks is ‘everywhere’ is further indication to me that our mainstream media is shyte.