the hook-up culture and its effects on men and women
cohabitation and its effect on marriage stability
balancing marriage, family and career
single motherhood by choice and IVF
modern sex: a sterile, recreation activity
the real purposes of sex: procreation and spousal unity
the hormone oxytocin: when it is secreted and what it does
the hormone vassopressin: when it is secreted and what it does
the sexual revolution and the commoditization of sex
the consumer view of sex vs the organic view of sex
fatherlessness and multi-partner fertility
how the “sex-without-relationship” view harms children
52 minutes of lecture, 33 minutes of Q&A from the Harvard students. The Q&A is worth listening to – the first question is from a gay student, and Dr. Morse pulls a William Lane Craig to defeat her objection. It was awesome! I never get tired of listening to her talk, and especially on the topics of marriage and family.
A recent study published in the Journal of Sex Research sheds some light on these questions. A research team headed by Jennifer Walsh analyzed alcohol use in almost 500 casual and 1400 romantic sexual intercourse events that happened to 300 college women on a monthly basis over a period of 12 months. Alcohol use was not very common during romantic sex: 20% of romantic encounters involved some drinking and only 5% involved heavy drinking (defined as four or more drinks). Hookups, on the other hand, were a different story: Women drank during 53% of their hookups, and drank heavily during 38% of all hookups.
But not all hookups are created equal. There was an almost perfect linear relationship between drinking and partner closeness: The less known the partner, the more likely women drank before sex, and the more likely they drank a lot. Look at the graph I created based on their data. When the casual partner was an ex-boyfriend, for example, only 30% of hookups involved drinking and 17% heavy drinking. When the partner was a random stranger, however, 89% of hookups involved drinking and 63% involved four or more drinks!
The writer explains why this happens:
Alcohol also provides an excuse to those who need one. In a world that encourages hooking up but also judges those (especially women) who engage in it too much, many seem to need it. You’re a slut if you hook up with people just becauseyou want to: Good girls don’t actively want to hook up, and being sober means taking full responsibility for your actions. But if you can blame it on the alcohol, you’re absolved of guilt. You can still be a good girl who just happened to make a mistake.
This study agrees with a study I blogged about before from the University of Virginia, which explained that college students drink before hook-ups in order to be able to explain to their friends why it wasn’t their fault:
A Rutgers University student commented, “If you’re drinking a lot it’s easier to hook up with someone… [and] drugs, it’s kind of like a bonding thing… and then if you hook up with them and you don’t want to speak to them again, you can always blame it on the drinking or the drugs.”
Other women observed that being drunk gives a woman license to act sexually interested in public in ways that would not be tolerated if she were sober. For instance, a University of Michigan student said, “Girls are actually allowed to be a lot more sexual when they are drunk…”
A University of Chicago junior observed, “One of my best friends… sometimes that’s her goal when we go out. Like she wants to get drunk so I guess she doesn’t have to feel guilty about [hooking up].”
Now, the first thing I thought of when I saw this article in Psychology Today was: “I wonder what criteria these college students are using in order to decide which strangers they have sex with”. And then I realized. For perfect strangers, it would have to be something obvious, like physical appearance. A study found that it takes a woman 3 minutes to decide if she likes a man or not. Whatever assessment is being made in that 3 minutes surely isn’t adequate for long-term plans for marriage, children and church attendance.
Don’t judge me, it wasn’t my fault
It reminds me of something I read a while back in a Theodore Dalrymple book. Theodore Dalrymple is the famous psychiatrist who writes books about culture in the UK. One of his books about the complete lack of personal responsibility among criminals is actually posted online.
In the chapter “Tough Love“, he talks about the nurses he works with:
All the more surprising is it to me, therefore, that the nurses perceive things differently. They do not see a man’s violence in his face, his gestures, his deportment, and his bodily adornments, even though they have the same experience of the patients as I. They hear the same stories, they see the same signs, but they do not make the same judgments. What’s more, they seem never to learn; for experience—like chance, in the famous dictum of Louis Pasteur—favors only the mind prepared. And when I guess at a glance that a man is an inveterate wife beater (I use the term “wife” loosely), they are appalled at the harshness of my judgment, even when it proves right once more.
This is not a matter of merely theoretical interest to the nurses, for many of them in their private lives have themselves been the compliant victims of violent men. For example, the lover of one of the senior nurses, an attractive and lively young woman, recently held her at gunpoint and threatened her with death, after having repeatedly blacked her eye during the previous months. I met him once when he came looking for her in the hospital: he was just the kind of ferocious young egotist to whom I would give a wide berth in the broadest daylight.
Why are the nurses so reluctant to come to the most inescapable of conclusions? Their training tells them, quite rightly, that it is their duty to care for everyone without regard for personal merit or deserts; but for them, there is no difference between suspending judgment for certain restricted purposes and making no judgment at all in any circumstances whatsoever. It is as if they were more afraid of passing an adverse verdict on someone than of getting a punch in the face—a likely enough consequence, incidentally, of their failure of discernment. Since it is scarcely possible to recognize a wife beater without inwardly condemning him, it is safer not to recognize him as one in the first place.
This failure of recognition is almost universal among my violently abused women patients, but its function for them is somewhat different from what it is for the nurses. The nurses need to retain a certain positive regard for their patients in order to do their job. But for the abused women, the failure to perceive in advance the violence of their chosen men serves to absolve them of all responsibility for whatever happens thereafter, allowing them to think of themselves as victims alone rather than the victims and accomplices they are. Moreover, it licenses them to obey their impulses and whims, allowing them to suppose that sexual attractiveness is the measure of all things and that prudence in the selection of a male companion is neither possible nor desirable.
Often, their imprudence would be laughable, were it not tragic: many times in my ward I’ve watched liaisons form between an abused female patient and an abusing male patient within half an hour of their striking up an acquaintance. By now, I can often predict the formation of such a liaison—and predict that it will as certainly end in violence as that the sun will rise tomorrow.
At first, of course, my female patients deny that the violence of their men was foreseeable. But when I ask them whether they think I would have recognized it in advance, the great majority—nine out of ten—reply, yes, of course. And when asked how they think I would have done so, they enumerate precisely the factors that would have led me to that conclusion. So their blindness is willful.
If Dalrymple’s observations about female patients and nurses can be applied more broadly, then it explains why women initiate 70% of divorces. Women who don’t want to be “forced” to be self-controlled and responsible with their choices will want an easy way to get out of it. According to Dalrymple’s experience, it’s not that women don’t know that bad boys are lousy at marriage and fatherhood. They know it, but they choose to blind themselves to it, because it’s just too much self-denial to have to be serious about making responsible choices with men and sex and marriage.
Right now, we are $20 trillion in debt, half of that thanks to Barack Obama’s administration. I believe that the majority of this debt was accrued because people wanted to do what felt good to them in the moment, and then pass off the costs of their “unpredictable” mistakes onto their neighbors. The truth is that these costs will be paid by generations of young people not yet born. People shouldn’t talk about how much they care about children, if their voting will force all the children of tomorrow into slavery.
One last piece of advice to men. My best friend Dina told me to always evaluate women based on their past choices, not based on the picture of themselves that they paint with words. Wise advice.
Drew taught Dr. William Lane Craig’s Defenders class for two weeks in a row while Dr. Craig was in Australia. He chose to focus on secularism.
Note: Drew has some problems with the microphone for the first 2.5 minutes of part 1. Be patient.
Part 1 deals with how Europe and America became secular in different ways.
Part 1 topics:
Secularism: the attempt to take values based on religion (e.g. – Judeo-Christian values) out of the public square
Television programs that are targeted to more thoughtful viewers favor secular or liberal worldviews
Consider the sexual revolution – a new set of beliefs about sex are being pushed into the culture
Sex revolution includes: same-sex marriage, pornography, hookup culture, no-fault divorce
The effect of the sexual revolution has been to introduce widespread fatherlessness, which is very bad for children
The sexual revolution is being pushed in the popular culture, but also in the school sexual education programs
You can see where secularism has led to by looking at Europe, which has largely rejected its Christian roots
For example, Germany and Sweden are very aggressive about stamping out homeschooling
They do this because they are trying to push a government-approved set of beliefs and meanings onto children
How bad could it get? You can look at how Orthodox Judaism was persecuted in Russia after the communist revolution
How did Europe become so secular?
Wars in Europe between Protestants and Catholics caused people to think that theistic religion was bad
Secularists first attacked theism philosophically by trying to replace it with deism – the view that miracles do not occur
Secularists then pushed a radical empirism which attempted to reduce religious claims to meaningless irrationality
The Christian church responded by retreating from philosophical and theological claims and focusing on moral claims
That’s how Europe became secular, but how did America become secular?
America became secular because Christianity was transformed from a knowledge tradition to an emotional tradition
Pastors started to move away from presenting Christianity as true and instead presented it as emotionally fulfilling
Pastors emphasized personal experiences instead of philosophical theology and apologetics
European ideas arrived: deism, Darwinism, Bible criticism, etc.
Christianity responded to this by abandoning the centers of learning it had founded (universities) into pious isolation
As the universities became more secular, they turned out the next generation of influencers, including the media
This retreat from intellectual engagement was augmented by a fixation on end-times speculation (e.g. Left Behind)
(Drew talks to Jeremy, a philosophy student at Georgia State University, about whether Christianity is respected in his classes)
How politicians and the media used the Scopes Monkey Trial to marginalize Christianity as anti-science
The perception of Christians in the public square changed – they were viewed as ignorant, irrational and anti-science
Instead of causing Christians to work harder at science, they became even more fundamentalist, and less influential
Christians today are a tiny minority of influential groups, e.g. – scientists, media, etc.
In contrast, secular Jews, who tend to grow up in a culture that values learning, have a much greater influence
Even if Christians try to retreat to the country where they can homeschool, there is no hiding from the Internet
Which organizations are working against secularism today?
Example of what Christians can do: Plantinga’s refutation of the problem of evil
Example of what Christians can do: widespread use of ultrasound to move people to the pro-life view
Example of what Christians can do: Liberty University’s effort to produce Christians who can work in media
A story about William Lane Craig and a secular physicist who had lost her faith
People must have liked what they heard and saw in the first week, because he got a big turnout in the second week.
Part 2 deals with practical tips for engaging in the culture.
Topics in Part 2:
The real root cause of opposition to Christianity is from the sexual revolution
For example, moral relativism is so popular in the university, but it is almost entirely driven by sexual liberation
Evangelism and culture-shaping are not the same thing – each requires a different set of skills
Where do people get their information? Public school, news media, late night comedy shows, etc.
Two things for every Christian need to do: 1) Get informed, and 2) Get involved
First: you do not need to be smarter than average. Dr. Craig is a leading scholar because he studies 9 hours a day
Implying that people with influence are “smart” just provides us with an excuse not to try if we are not “smart”
Ordinary Christians need to be willing to give up fun more than they need to be naturally “smart”
Asks Cody: what about that Christian apologist who hung out mostly with internet atheists and then became one
Famous quantum chemist: you’re right, I am not much smarter than most people, I just work a lot harder at it
Drew: to get informed, you should follow good Christian blogs like Apologetics 315 and Wintery Knight
Drew knows Wintery Knight personally and WK is someone who knows apologetics but he also knows other things
WK connects the Christian worldview to lots different things, e.g. = marriage – he can find you the right people and books
(Drew holds up “What is Marriage?” book) This is the best book to argue the same-sex marriage issue
(Drew hold up “The Case for Life” book) This is the best book to argue the pro-life position
Slacktivism: don’t just send people links that you find on the Internet – read the articles and books and then talk about them
(Drew holds up the Lee Strobel “Case for” books) These are the best introductory books on basic Christian apologetics
Audio books are a great way for people to take in the information, and you can get them for free from the library
The Internet is not the best place for arguing about the things you learn – face to face conversations are much better
Biola’s apologetics certificate program is an excellent resource, and it’s all audio lectures so you just listen to them
You can get free apologetics audio from Apologetics 315 and Phil Fernandes
We also need to learn how to how to change the culture and how the other side changes the culture
To really make a difference, then a graduate degree might be for you – especially the M.A. in apologetics from Biola
The university is also very important – Christianity needs to be represented in the university
Influential people like Supreme Court justices come out of the university, which is why we need to be there
The Discovery Institute is doing the most to provide a credible rival to naturalistic science
They have a budget of $4 million dollars and they are punching way above their weight
If every evangelical sent them $20, they’d have a budget of $1.2 billion – what could they do with that?
(Drew puts a check for $20 for Discovery Institute in an envelope and seals it, to show how it’s done)
The Truth Project, which is put out by Focus on the Family – it’s another excellent training resource
When it comes to politics, focus on discussing policy issues, not on pushing particular candidates
If every evangelical Christian just pulled their own weight, it would make a big difference
It all starts by making the decision to take some leisure time to do things that really work
I could not agree with him more on his selections on the marriage debate and the abortion debate. I have bought at least a half-dozen of each of those for people. And I highly recommend getting the Strobel books on audio, especially the Case for a Creator. Love that book. Listen to it a bunch a times and you will start to talk like Lee Strobel.
I listened to all the Biola University lectures before they even had the certificate program, along with the Stand to Reason Masters Series in Christian Thought and about 60 Veritas Forum leture sets. Those things probably did the most for me to become a capable defender of Christianity.
The point he made about giving money to the Discovery Institute is important. In the last month, I sent out $300 to a Ratio Christi chapter for a lecture they gave, and $500 for a Christian group in Canada that put on an apologetics conference.
I think he’s right when he talks about everyone pulling their own weight. I spend about 2-3 hours a day reading and blogging. I donate a portion of my earnings to Christian scholars who study and/or speak at the university. I support Christian students who are doing degrees in philosophy, science and engineering. In church, I don’t anything yet, but I have a network of friends who do things in church, like organize lectures, debates and apologetics book studies. My current pastor is aware of my abilities, and he’s already asked me to help them with an evangelism program they are starting up.
I got started on apologetics by putting in the time on some of the things he mentioned in part 2 of his talk. The basic things to do are reading introductory books on apologetics, especially the ones on philosophy of religion, historical Jesus and physical sciences. If you can’t read, then at least get hold of lectures from Biola University and listen to those, along with Lee Strobel audio books, Brian Auten interviews, William Lane Craig debates. Just put them in the car and listen, and soon you’ll be sounding just like them.
The Daily Wire reports on the political convictions of the people who are being paid tens of thousands of dollars to “educate” our children.
An extensive study of 8,688 tenure-track professors at 51 of the 66 top-ranked liberal arts colleges in the U.S. published by the National Association of Scholars found that the ratio of faculty members registered as Democrats compared to those registered Republican is now a stunning 10.4 to 1. If two military colleges that are technically described as “liberal arts colleges” are removed from the calculations, the ratio is 12.7 to 1.
The researcher, Mitchell Langbert, Associate Professor of Business at Brooklyn College, found that nearly 40% of the colleges in the study had zero faculty members who were registered Republican. Not a single one. Nearly 80% of the 51 colleges had so few Republican faculty members that they were statistically insignificant.
There is virtually zero ideological diversity, and that’s how the university administrators want it. They know that young people are peer-driven and eager to conform to their elders, and they want to be sure that the environment at university produces little progressives. Critical thinking isn’t a concern, ideological purity and adherence to dogma is their overriding concern. And they achieve their goal by discriminating against conservative students and faculty and Christian students and faculty. This is the REAL discrimination that open-minded, tolerant people should be concerned about. But since it’s discrimination by progressives, no one is concerned about it. Not even the taxpayers paying the salaries of these overgrown children.
Now, on this blog, I have repeatedly told people two things. First of all, it’s important that you don’t go to university unless you are going into a STEM field. Anything else is just a waste of money. Second, you can save money by doing the first two years at a community college and then transferring.
The first rule is there not just because the highest paying jobs are in STEM, but because STEM is also the least dominated by progressive dogma, inside and outside the university.
When Langbert broke down the political affiliations by field, he found some clear and rather unsurprising trends: by far the highest imbalance is found in the more ideological fields, in particular the social sciences and humanities:
The STEM subjects, such as chemistry, economics, mathematics, and physics, have lower D:R ratios than the social sciences and humanities. The highest D:R ratio of all is for the most ideological field: interdisciplinary studies. I could not find a single Republican with an exclusive appointment to fields like gender studies, Africana studies, and peace studies. As Fabio Rojas describes with respect to Africana or Black studies, these fields had their roots in ideologically motivated political movements that crystallized in the 1960s and 1970s.
Langbert found the following ratio of Democrats to Republicans in the key academic fields (ordered from most biased to most balanced):
Communications – 108 to 0 (no registered Republicans)
Anthropology – 56 to 0 (no registered Republicans)
Religion – 70:1
English – 48.3:1
Sociology – 43.8:1
Art – 40.3:1
Music – 32.8:1
Theater – 29.5:1
Classics – 27.3:1
Geoscience – 27:1
Environmental – 25.3:1
Language – 21.1:1
Biology – 20.8:1
Philosophy – 17.5:1
History – 17.4:1
Psychology – 16.8:1
Poli Sci – 8.2:1
Computers – 6.3:1
Physics – 6.2:1
Mathematics – 5.6:1
Professional – 5.5:1
Economics – 5.5:1
Chemistry – 5.2:1
Engineering – 1.6:1
It’s very important that we learn something from this list: Democrats don’t likely to test their ideas against reality. The fields that are dominated by Democrats are the ones that involve the least hard work, the least thinking, the least testing of reality, the least production of goods and services that others will want to buy. Democrats go into these fields precisely because it allows them to paint a picture of themselves as good people using words, but without having to do any work that would allow them to sell something to others that has value. I.e. – they want to talk about how great they are, but they don’t want to have to do anything that anyone else would pay for in a competitive free market.
And this is only going to stop when we cut off subsidies for higher education, which is largely given to far-left administrators and far-left non-STEM professors.
What’s the ideal balance between work and missions? In this post, I will argue against going abroad to do full-time missions.
Do apologetics ministry in your spare time, and work full-time
A full-time job and part-time ministry makes the most sense from a cost-benefit point of view. I have friends who are software engineers who studied enough science, history, and philosophy part-time, who are able to do public debates with atheists, which influence many more people than one-on-one interactions. One of my friends has several Masters degrees, and is in a PhD program, but his full-time career is in software and network management. He is 100% self-funded. He has worked in a successful apologetics career with a full-time career in technology, and he is debt-free. This is the best option . Your debts get paid off. Your resume stays gap-free. You bring a nest egg to your future spouse. You can afford to have children. You can afford a stay-at-home mom. You can afford either homeschooling or private schools, should you decide to go that route.
You have to start saving and investing early if you want to be independent in your old age. With full-time work and part-time ministry, you still make a difference for Christ and His Kingdom over time, while avoiding a financial crisis that could cost you your family, your friends, and even your faith. This is an especially wise way to proceed, given the economic struggles we are likely to face from housing bubbles, student loan bubbles, rising interest rates, entitlement crises, state pension underfunding, environmental regulations, the ever increasing national debt, demographic crisis, etc. Read the culture and be cautious about the future.
Use the Internet to make a difference in other countries for free
One cost-effective way to make a difference is by using the Internet to reach other countries. You can work full-time, and then use your spare time to blog. This blog gets an average of 24,000 page views per week. About 45% of that traffic comes from NON-USA countries. If you keep working full-time and just start a blog for free, then you can maintain your gap-free resume and have a much easier time marrying and raising children.
The university next door is a great place to have an influence
I do think full-time ministry is OK in two cases: if you don’t go abroad, or if you go abroad with a full-time job or full-ride scholarship. My friend Eric Chabot was able to host Frank Turek at Ohio State University last night (see photo above), for example. He got a great crowd. He is donation-driven, but he runs a lean operation since he lives near the campus where he serves. When it comes to having an impact, the American university is the place to make a difference. We have enough trouble in our own country, especially in the universities, where so many young people lose the faith of their childhood – there’s no need to travel and incur heavy expenses. I think it also makes sense financially to go abroad for missions, if you get a scholarship that pays your way or if you have a job offer where you can work full-time and do missions part-time. What does not make sense is sending an unskilled missionary to a foreign country at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars that could be used much more efficiently in smaller, effective Eric-Chabot-style operations.
Your feelings and desires are not God speaking to you
Now some people who want to go into overseas missions will tell me that they feel led to go. This method of decision making is not Biblical, as I explained in one of my previous posts. If you believe the Bible, then feelings are a pretty poor way of determining what God wants from you. In fact, left to themselves, humans typically choose what feels best for them, not what does best for God. If God really calls you to do something, like he called Jonah, then you probably won’t feel like doing it. Missionary work is especially suspect when God is supposedly calling you to go to a country that you always dreamed of traveling to while you were a non-Christian. Normally, conversion causes you to have different desires – not the same desires you had as a non-Christian. Unless you hear an audible voice, like an Old Testament prophet would, then it’s best not to think that God is speaking through your feelings and desires. A good book to read on this is “Decision Making and the Will of God“, by Garry Friesen.
Don’t go into missions in order to have fun or go on an adventure
I am suspicious of people who try to turn Christianity into a mechanism for achieving the same goals that non-Christians want to achieve. These days, it seems as if everyone wants to travel to exotic places. If there is evidence of hedonistic, fun-pursuing, thrill-seeking behavior in your past, then consider that you may just want an “adventure”. I have a friend who went to Russia for a year just after graduating college, and she admitted to me that she just went “to have an adventure”. To me, that’s not a good reason to spend thousands of dollars, and put gaps in your resume. It’s not a cost-effective way to make a difference, given the other alternatives. Your goal should be to make yourself defensible so that you can put out a sustained effort that lasts, not burn out and then be ineffective for the rest of your life. Think about what J. Warner Wallace says about living wisely and prudently so you position yourself to make a steady contribution in the second half of your life. Don’t wreck your long-term impact for short-term fun. God will not honor that.
Don’t go into missions to make up for an immoral past
Anyway, if you look in your past and see lots of wild behavior – drinking, drugs, premarital sex, cohabitation, abortions, gambling, divorces, etc., then consider that you may be interested in missions for the wrong reasons. You don’t need to go on a missions trip to dramatically declare to everyone that you are now completely reformed from your wild party days. I actually managed to talk a friend out of a short-term missions trip who felt that it was a good way to do something meaningful to “make up” for her past. By being responsible with her job and saving money, she’s managed to avoid burning out, and to instead put out a steady stream of effective activities. And she was financially stable enough to get married and have children, as well – another excellent way to make a difference.
Do not go into missions if your resume and balance sheet do not demonstrate maturity
We already talked about the need for sound planning in the Bible study we did with Wayne Grudem. The Bible praises hard work, stewardship, prudence and wisdom. And this is especially true for people who are getting older and need to be thinking about marriage, children and retirement. It’s not a good witness for Christians to be financially unstable. When you are able to stand on your own two feet financially, and help others from your earnings, you gain credibility with non-Christians. We don’t want people to think that we are doing this for the money. The best option is to be self-funded, like Paul and his tent-making-funded ministry.