I came across an article written last year by Tucker Carlson, and he highlighted quite an interesting tidbit of information:
The most comprehensive study of American sexual behavior ever undertaken (published by the University of Chicago and marketed under the notably non-arousing title The Social Organization of Sexuality) found that, in fact, ‘having a religious affiliation was associated with higher rates of orgasm for women.’ The devout are actually having better sex than the rest of us.
…and another fun one from Time
The women most likely to achieve orgasm each and every time (32%) are, believe it or not, conservative Protestants.
…oh look; another one!
‘Primetime Live’ sex survey reveals that more Republicans (56 percent) are very satisfied with their sex lives than Democrats (47%).
So why are all of these conservative Christians having awesome sex? Because they’re in long-term committed relationships (sometimes known as “marriage” for our liberal readers out there)
Healthyplace.com writes:
Single people aren’t having good sex like committed couples, including those married….Psychologist Dr. Tiy-E says that committed and married couples will have better sex because you perform at your best if you are in your comfort zone.
“There is nothing more comforting than knowing your man or your woman will be there for you every day and every night,” says Tiy-E, author of Secrets Men Keep: What They Don’t Tell. “Imagine love and you imagine great sex and great sex/love usually comes from committed and married couples.”
No wonder liberal feminists are so angry…
Have a nice day!
Well I’m angry because I’m sick of irrational assumptions about feminism, sex and relationships that are based on sexism and stereotypes.
Long-term committed relationships are only ‘known as marriage’ if they ARE marriages.
I don’t like marriage as an institution so I will never get married. If I do, it will be for purely legal, practical reasons and I will treat it no differently to how I would treat, say, drawing up a will. The emotional commitment and celebration of love? For me, that has nothing to do with objects such as bits of paper or circles of gold metal. I’m in a long-term committed relationship now and very content both emotionally and sexually, and I’m not married.
In fact, all the left-leaning feminists I know, both male and female, are in happy long-term (non-married) relationships. Why do you assume that liberal feminism necessarily equates to promiscuity? It doesn’t – it simply means that you can make the choice without being condemned for your actions.
I would argue that long-term committed relationships don’t necessarily come with a ring. Pieces of gold and paper certificates (which, really, only give you some convenient tax benefits) are absolutely no measure of what it means to be in a committed relationship. Marriage is a wonderful way to express commitment to someone and the relationship between two people, but it is by no means the end all, be all. I can think of plenty of empty, strained marriages and plenty of committed, wonderful relationships that don’t have a marriage certificate to prove it.
As to the evidence that women with a religious affiliation have more orgasms (and, therefore, more pleasurable sex), is that really because they’re religious? Or is that just a correlation? I agree with you that they’re probably having more orgasms because they’re in committed relationships and have had more time to get it right, but I worry that your implication is that those with non-religious affiliations in committed relationships would not have sex that is as satisfying as their religious counterparts.
I completely agree with you on one point: commitment, time, and care make for great sex. Commitment is something that should always be advocated, regardless of religious persuasion. However, to go back to my original point, the institution of marriage and religious beliefs are not absolute requirements for a committed, loving relationship. They’re great to have, and I would certainly advocate them, but they are not the only things necessary for a committed relationship and, to refer to the issue at hand, great sex. Also, feminism and feminist beliefs are not necessarily detriments to healthy relationships or great sex.
Clare Boothe Luce was married twice and a Congresswoman. Her achievements, freedom to divorce, and support herself without a husband’s help are the products of First Wave feminists’ efforts to give women the vote and an influential role in American political life. She should be held up as a beneficiary of First Wavers’ hard-won achievements rather than a case against feminism.
Also, your message to women about empowering themselves with information is a feminist message; you’re giving women and girls information to empower themselves in their decisions, to be equal in knowledge and power to the men that they meet, get to know, and love. It seems a bit hasty to declare that feminists are angry since, as far as I can tell, you are one or your mission is inherently feminist and you don’t recognize it. Doesn’t it seem like cutting off your nose to spite your face to say feminists are angry? Or to assume that they’re liberal?
And why do you assume liberal feminists are radical, angry, loose, and unfulfilled people? Maybe they’re angry and frustrated with the general assumption that they don’t believe in or can’t function within committed, loving relationships (and, to that end, the joke’s on them? Their “punishment” for being feminists is a life without great sex? Yay, feminists concede defeat…? “We were wrong, and we are so starved for great sex!”…?). And why do you assume that feminists are without a religious persuasion? I’m a Christian feminist considering divinity as a career and currently majoring in the Comparative Study of Religion, and I know I’m not alone.
Although I do have to admit that blogs like this one sometimes make me hallucinate and think that I really must be the only Christian feminist on Planet Earth.
Why do you assume that liberal feminists are promiscuous? I’d say about half of my female Democrat friends are waiting or did wait until marriage. Usually it has more to do with religious affiliation, doesn’t it?