A new study in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy sought to investigate the relationship between sexual values and sexual incongruence as well as the effects of religiousness on this relationship. The findings indicate that religiousness predicts sexual incongruence, but not more than conservative sexual values, which demonstrated the most substantial relationship. ...
This headline makes it seem like people with conservative values are bad at sticking to them, but I'm suggesting that a lot of people with "conservative values" are virtue signalling, with no intent of aspiring to their stated values except in a preformative way (if that). Let's compare someone in a happy marriage who is sometimes tempted by infidelity, with someone who states publicly that they are a traditional family type while being a serial philanderer. The former clearly has aspirations to a set of values that they struggle with in a normal way. The latter clearly doesn't value what they say they value. It's bad science to equate these data points unless the data you're looking for is merely what people say about themselves. All you're going to get about a study of what people say about themselves is that people talk a lot of shit. I'm not sure we're short on evidence for that.
I'll grant that there's a semantic argument here, but if we're talking about something as fundamental as 'value' then the semantics matter.
That's definitely possible. It's also possible that - as I noted below - these aren't personal values they hold themselves to so much as valuations they use to determine the worth of others. And one that an older, less sexually active cohort imposes on a younger generation as a form of commodification.
I would argue that values and behaviors are fundamentally different human qualities, so conflating them to declare people hypocrites misses how and why these standards are set.
As a counterexample, a recovering alcoholic can value sobriety very highly while regularly failing to exhibit the behavior. This, in contrast, to a social drinker who doesn't see much merit to teatoddling, while rarely getting more than buzzed. The value of restraint is prized in the individual who lacks it, while it seems trivial to an individual who enjoys it in abundance.
I agree. I just think the framing is off.
As a social convention, individuals who flaunt their sexuality and their polyamory do absolutely suffer a social stigma in conservative communities. Particularly if they trade on their sexuality for some perceived benefit.
By contrast, more liberal communities can view individuals with a long and stories sexual history (particularly women) as exemplary and worthy of emulation.
The fact that one community has more instances of infidelity than another has nothing to do with whether they consider the practice admirable. In fact, the opposite can potentially be true. The conservative-leaning Cheerleader/Athlete pair might have a far more reactionary view towards sex simply because they've experienced a lot of sexual drama and don't consider it worth the price of admission. The more progressive but less sexually adventurous PMC types might romanticize promiscuity simply because they've only ever had relatively chaste and monogamous lifestyles.
Values and behaviors are different, but I struggle with the idea of people's self-declared values when they end up being unrelated to their behaviors. Values drive behaviors, within a set of material boundaries. The alcoholic who wants to b sober is struggling with a complex dependency that makes it very difficult for them to live their values in a very real and material way. That's where this sort of data becomes useful, because it then becomes about how to close the gap between values and behavior. There are plenty of alcoholics who might agree that sobriety is generally good, but who don't actually care to practice it. I would argue that the former has a claim on sobriety as a value while the latter clearly only has an academic appreciation for it, but if you gave them both a survey and said "do you value sobriety?" they might give the same answer. Without being able to point to some material consequence of holding certain values, stated values are as meaningful as what hat you're wearing that day. It's still data, I just don't get how the data is useful.
Again, I'd point you back to the economic conception of value. I can value bread even though I don't know how to bake. In fact, I may value bread more highly precisely because I don't know how to bake.
I'd argue that there's another measure of value, and that's in how inebriated people are treated.
If I'm openly hostile towards other people who've had to much to drink, that's as much a reflection of my values as my own behaviors. If, for instance, I endorse a return to Prohibition or if I believe a coworker who drinks on the job should be fired (or arrested), then I am expressing a value independent of my consumption habits. Using "drunk" or "lush" as a slur, accusing people of being drunk when they make mistakes or disagree with me, etc, etc. All signals that I consider excess alcohol consumption a moral failing.
I agree that a simple survey answer "Is alcoholism Good / Bad / Neutral?" might not be the best method of evaluating merit. But you can definitely probe deeper, asking how someone might respond to the consumption and inebriated behaviors of a neighbor, friend, family member, or coworker, in order to establish morality.
Ah, yes, I see where you're getting at. I'm thinking about this in terms of "I have values as an individual, and here's how they relate to my behavior" but you're absolutely right that my values extend to how I perceive others, regardless of my own behavior. In that sense, it definitely matters what I say and how I feel about those values, even if I'm a hypocrite.
I've done a bit of survey design stuff over the years and I've found that asking people about their perception of others is a great way of getting to a more authentic answer about their own beliefs. It can then be used as a cross reference to what they say about themselves. Good addition.
Regardless, I acknowledge I'm being overly prescriptive in some ways here and there's a lot of nuance in this discussion. 'Values' are a complex issue, and more than anything I'm poking at whether this study is saying what it appears to be saying.