If You're Against Recreational Drug Use, There's A Good Chance You're Against Recreational Sex
In a survey Robert Kurzban and some colleagues administered to a thousand people, the two seemed to go together -- attitudes about drug use and attitudes about casual sex. He blogs at Psychology Today about the correlation they found that predicts being for or against legalizing pot:
You might think it's all about personality, and ask about their "openness to new experiences" or some such. You could go the religious route, and ask about how often they go to religious services...But here's the best one: "Is sex without love OK?"
If they answer yes, it is OK, then you can predict with a certain degree of accuracy that they will be in favor of legalizing pot. If they answer no, then, obviously the reverse.
We asked a whole battery of survey questions, and out of all of the items we asked, this question was the best predictor of people's stated views on the morality and legality of recreational drugs.
We did not, I should say, ask people just any old questions. We used questions that different theories say should relate to views on drugs. And, of course, we used questions that our own theory predicted should be related to views on drugs.
So, there's the question. Why should the same people who think sex without love is OK be the ones who also favor the legalization of marijuana? Or, put the other way, why do people who think sex without love isn't OK oppose recreational drug use?
Remember in your answer to this question, you can't go back to the Color Theory of Morality, that it's political views that are causing both: you can't guess someone's views on drugs from their political views as well as you can from the question about sex.
So, is could opposition to drugs really be all about sex? And if so, why?
A lot of people manage to successfully buy drugs online using a recreational and prescription drugs list from A-Z as a guide.
Sorry, but this sounds like a really stupid survey question. If someone asked me "Is sex without love OK?" I would have no idea how to answer that. OK for me - absolutely not. OK for other people - really none of my business. But of course that sums up my opinion of drugs as well.
KarenW at August 11, 2011 9:01 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/11/are_you_against.html#comment-2414959">comment from KarenWKaren, you pretty much reinforced Kurzban's thinking -- that how you think about recreational sex predicts how you think about recreational drug use.
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2011 9:19 AM
sorry amy, that survey is BS. Recreational sex to me is a disgusting concept. However, I think all drugs should be legal as long as alcohol is.
ronc at August 11, 2011 9:37 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/11/are_you_against.html#comment-2414989">comment from roncInteresting, ronc. You've never wanted to have sex just to have sex or you just didn't do it?
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2011 9:39 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/11/are_you_against.html#comment-2414992">comment from Amy AlkonOh, and because every person doesn't fit according to the way many people are falling in doesn't mean a survey is "bs." And you can say "bullshit" here. And any other words you like. There are no 4-year-olds or elderly ladies with a fragile constitution here.
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2011 9:41 AM
Yeah, I have no problem with the concept, just the wording of the question (if that's really how vaguely it's worded).
KarenW at August 11, 2011 9:53 AM
Is sex without love ok? Sure, as long as I'm not the one paying for it! But I'd rather have an emotional connection to my sex partner than not.
Legalize pot? Oh hell yes! If it weren't for Harry Anslinger and W.R. Hearst, it wouldn't have been made illegal in the first place. It's much less destructive than alcohol, both physically and mentally.
And I say that as a former pothead (yeah, you knew I was, Crid, and you like me anyway!), who has lately taken a serious shine to some serious wine. But I don't over-indulge (much!).
Flynne at August 11, 2011 10:05 AM
There are no 4-year-olds or elderly ladies with a fragile constitution here.
Thank you! So many times lately (I'm 61) I have been approached as though I'm "elderly," and it is very refreshing to know that not everyone thinks of me that way. Good grief, I forget most of the time that I am old enough to be mother to most of the people I associate with every day.
Does "recreational sex" mean the same as "sex with someone you don't love"? Not necessarily. But...is sex without love OK? I certainly think it's fine, as long as the parties involved are adult about it and neither one has false expectations (or an undisclosed spouse).
As as a child of the sixties who has never ingested pot in any form, ever, I guess the original assertion applies to me. Although I have no desire to ever use pot in any form, I do think our police force should be used for catching real criminals rather than in harassing people who are bothering no one.
gharkness at August 11, 2011 10:15 AM
I'm not sure how I'd interpret the questions.
There is a vast gulf between something being not a good idea and advocating using the blunt force of the legal system to stop something I probably wouldn't do.
If it doesn't harm me and mine, I would prefer not to be involved. It's not really that straightforward, is it, once we consider all the possible consequences and who pays for them?
The state is not going to let the children of Free-lovin Frieda and Dealer Don starve. They are going to make me pay... I'm also going to pay for Cheatin Charlie's AIDS treatments and, well, you see where this goes. Many people talk a lot about freedom, but expect to be saved from the consequences of their own choices.
MarkD at August 11, 2011 10:17 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/11/are_you_against.html#comment-2415106">comment from MarkDRegarding the state not letting drug dealers' children starve: In places where drugs have been legalized, they haven't seen drug use skyrocket. And don't you think you pay more if all the children are placed in foster care when Frieda and Dealer Don go to jail?
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2011 10:57 AM
I think it's probably the authoritarian mindset that comes part and parcel with the adoption of Christian ideals. If you subscribe to a regimented hierarchy of authority, with a magical, omnipotent monarch sitting at the top, dictating the rules of behavior that the whole world must comply with or be punished for eternity, you start to take on the role of hobby cop. An authoritarian mind has strong opinions about the way that OTHER people should behave (not that Christians are alone in this phenomenon). Recreational sex and recreational drug use fall outside of that regimented order that has to be preserved. It's a flawed world-view in that the world must change to adapt to the mind of the individual instead of the individual adapting to the ever-changing world. Mass stagnation versus a dynamic evolution of individuals. So, yeah, no sex before marriage, marriage being the institutionalized enshrinement of love, so no sex without love. You kind of have to drink the kool-aid to buy into the whole package. I'll pass. As long as nobody's getting hurt, nobody should have a problem with it. But then I wouldn't want to force my opinions on you...
Parge at August 11, 2011 11:19 AM
The first question is too ambiguous. There are too many emotional states that you can call "love" and "OK" can mean anything from "I enthusiasitically support and condone this" to "well, I suppose so, but I think it's suboptimal."
For me I would have to say:
1. Recreational sex without love is not for me (crazy bonobo recreational sex with my husband is definitely for me however). If others want to, it's OK with me.
2. Legalize it, mon
Elle at August 11, 2011 12:29 PM
This is the end result of letting a bunch of Puritans get into a boat together.
Richard Nikoley at August 11, 2011 12:41 PM
Amy, I am not convinced that employers are going to tolerate much in the way of dope smoking, even if it were legal. I wasn't clear, but I'm assuming Dealer Don can't get a better job, and Free-lovin Frieda isn't always on top of the birth control situation in my fictional characterizations. The state steps in to provide for the kids, and somebody (I think that is my real name) pays.
If I have to pay for it, I get a say in it. Otherwise, it's not my business.
MarkD at August 11, 2011 1:18 PM
Dear Adults!
Fuck who you want: Gentle, angry, oral, anal, costumes, bondage, humiliation, country music, do what you need to do.
I don't care.
Most recreational drug use is bad, though. It has bad effects for other people, and not just because it's illegal.
Ok? Ok!
Thank you and goodnight!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 11, 2011 2:59 PM
Never mind all that. I'm thinking the reverse question (do you think pot should be legalized?) may point me to women who are more likely to sleep with me!
:)
ian at August 11, 2011 3:07 PM
I don't believe in casual sex. It's not that I'm against the concept, it's just that any woman (except two I can think of) I've even made out with seems to have placed me into emotional handcuffs at the scene.
On the next FreeSwim day let's all tell our best Pothead stories!
Eric (former pothead) at August 11, 2011 3:31 PM
Eric, brilliant comment, spot on. (I remember my special "two" as well. FONDLY.)
It's just that the best pothead story would be: I pissed away some of the best hours of my life...
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 11, 2011 3:44 PM
I'm for recreational sex and drug usage and wish more people were. The key word is recreational. Not hardcore addiction to either.
Casey at August 11, 2011 3:46 PM
Sex outside of marriage is against my religion. That doesn't mean I think it should be illegal.
Because it's against MY religion, not everyone else's. While I believe that my God and faith are the absolute truth, I respect that the price of the freedom to practice my belief is that other people have precisely the same right: to practice their religion/philosophy/beliefs/etc. without my interference as long as they do not attempt to hurt other people or force conversion.
I am also in favor of legalizing all drugs and medicine for private use. If someone wants to buy opium, marijuana, oxycotin, or demerol, or just extra-strength Tylenol with codeine, that's his/her business. Only in recent history have we put limits on what people could and couldn't put in their own bodies. All its done, like the Prohibition, was create incredibly powerful criminal organizations.
The Original Kit at August 11, 2011 4:00 PM
> I remember my special "two" as well. FONDLY
Crid- Did you know Sandra Pepkin?
Eric at August 11, 2011 4:46 PM
Flynne- YOU made me smoke some grass for the first time in months! I found myself praticing the Zombie Dance in Thriller, making a pizza, and wondering why Hurricane Balls are so cool while watching Cimino's Heaven's Gate.
PS- someone mentioned John Denver to me the other day, and I haven't got his songs out of my brain since.
~~Rocky Mountains,
~~Country Music High....
Eric (ignore the stoned guy, nothing to see here...) at August 11, 2011 5:50 PM
FUUUUCCCKKK!
I burned my pizza!
Eric at August 11, 2011 5:51 PM
See? Seeeee??
And who's going to have to deal with the consequences of that burned pizza, Eric?
Hmm?
You got it?
Oh. Okay, whatever
cridcomment@gmail.com at August 11, 2011 6:03 PM
"In places where drugs have been legalized, they haven't seen drug use skyrocket."
Oh? Ever hear of Zurich's "Needle Park"?
And whatever happened to the concept that if you encourage an activity, more participation results? What is happening to smoking, the legal use of tobacco and the drug, nicotine?
You made an example of Tarika Wilson, who was definitely engaged in lots of recreational sex in the process of having multiple children by different drug dealers.
The point: having no restraints is not all good.
Radwaste at August 11, 2011 6:59 PM
With actual legalisation (as opposed to half-assed decriminalisation) you expect to see some increase. The cost, both in dollars and personal risk, will decrease and lead to an increase in consumption. It would be hard to tax drugs enough to either bring them up to illegal street prices or to create as much disincentive as possible jail time.
Whether it skyrockets or not is another story. But anyone arguing it wouldn't increase at all is dreaming.
Ltw at August 11, 2011 7:31 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/11/are_you_against.html#comment-2415733">comment from RadwasteRadwaste, because some abuse drugs doesn't mean you get to ban them for all -- any more than you get to ban alcohol because some people are drunks.
Needle Park:
http://mises.org/daily/5443/Welcome-to-Needle-Park
http://www.bastiatinstitute.org/2011/07/19/welcome-to-needle-park/
PS One link per comment unless you're me, or your comment will go to spam (I'm posting from within my software).
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2011 7:44 PM
Whether it skyrockets or not is another story. But anyone arguing it wouldn't increase at all is dreaming.
Posted by: Ltw
Wasnt it Spain or Portugal that decriminalized and saw no increase in drug use?
lujlp at August 11, 2011 8:14 PM
"I'm thinking the reverse question (do you think pot should be legalized?) may point me to women who are more likely to sleep with me!"
Awesome post, Ian! Funny as hell. I think I will also start using this as a conversation starter!
whistleDick at August 12, 2011 2:14 AM
"Radwaste, because some abuse drugs doesn't mean you get to ban them for all -- any more than you get to ban alcohol because some people are drunks."
And again, the point: having no restraints is not a good thing.
Wasn't this blog in agreement that the porn industry is exploitative? Hasn't it been said here that disease transmission results from promiscuity? Doesn't it think that smoking is a public health disaster? Do people here still want to point at alcohol, with tens of thousands of direct deaths a year, as an example to be emulated in other drug policy?
Has anyone provided the answer to the question, "What do critical industries do in impairment cases for a drug declared 'legal'?"
I haven't even seen an attempt.
Now - I do NOT understand the idea some religious people have about celibacy before marriage. The result seems to be negative in a lot of cases, where partners find themselves sexually incompatible after all, either immediately or later, and strike out to find a way to scratch an itch. But - how's that work out? Any better? In such cases, I say "no", because it breaks an important promise, removing "trustworthy" from that person's resumé.
But even among unmarried people, having sex with anyone you can sneak up on? A good thing? Really?
It simply assumes a level of responsiblity that has never been shown.
In fact, the presentation of the correlation offered initially seems to be negative - but is it, really?
Radwaste at August 12, 2011 5:13 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/11/are_you_against.html#comment-2417875">comment from RadwasteWasn't this blog in agreement that the porn industry is exploitative?
Um, no. Some parts of it are, just as some parts of the meatpacking industry and Hollywood are exploitative.
Again, because some people abuse something doesn't mean you can ban it for everyone.
Amy Alkon at August 12, 2011 5:16 AM
Is it a foregone conclusion that "recreational sex" is a good thing?
Are we even talking about the same thing? I find it touching that you care for Gregg, and have no worries whatsoever about the result - but if you thought you should screw your way across America, I'd say, "Nay, nay!"
Some religions have spent hundreds of years, if not thousands, getting fathers to stick around, and the social environment of the USA undid that in a couple of decades - freeing "fathers" to engage in something you could call "recreational" sex.
You're a prize, now. I'm sure you can imagine conduct of yours that would make you less of one. Yes, you have the upbringing and education to avoid cheapening yourself. Do others? Clearly not. And public policy has to address them.
Back to the porn stars. Lovelysoul, IIRC, said that the incidence of herpes was high, that the women were being used. How is that any different in the anonymity of the neighborhood bar?
Based on what I've seen here in drug arguments, there might be an assumption by some people that promiscuity only affects those who engage in it. That's not true, although less so than with drugs, because it remains that sex is designed to produce more people, not be "recreational" - a modern invention - and there are still impacts on society.
Just as with drugs - if you promote the idea that "getting yours" should be your concern, just what have you done to promote any person's consideration for others?
Radwaste at August 12, 2011 6:45 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/11/are_you_against.html#comment-2417931">comment from RadwasteSome religions have spent hundreds of years, if not thousands, getting fathers to stick around, and the social environment of the USA undid that in a couple of decades - freeing "fathers" to engage in something you could call "recreational" sex.
There's cheating and there's recreational sex. I don't have children, and for someone who doesn't, recreational sex is an issue why?
For most people, monogamy is trade-off they make for commitment.
Why is it "cheapening" oneself to have sex without commitment, if that's what works for you at the time? I had PLENTY of that, and enjoyed most of it greatly.
Sex might be the way people make more people, but I've found birth control exceptionally handy for avoiding that sort of thing.
Amy Alkon at August 12, 2011 6:53 AM
"Why is it "cheapening" oneself to have sex without commitment, if that's what works for you at the time?"
Well, why is a promiscuous woman called, "easy"?
Can you name an activity that would make you less desirable - a measure of worth?
If Emma Watson started abusing drugs and alcohol, and we were all treated to tabloid stories of serial sexual escapades and an online porn video, would she be considered a role model? Just guessing, she's worth about what Paris Hilton is at the bank; which one would you have a daughter emulate?
Remember: you're talking to a guy who thinks Traci Lords is wonderful for having outlasted her critics and for making something of herself.
Any pretty girl can be a lumber camp toy. Isn't there more?
Radwaste at August 13, 2011 6:05 PM
I'm somewhat curious as to the wording of the questions.
Asking preferences about how I treat my own body? Or asking if I approve or disapprove of how other people treat theirs?
Or what... exactly?
LauraGr at August 13, 2011 8:45 PM
Leave a comment