Survey Shows Oldsters Staying Peppy
I live in a state of denial about this getting old business. I actually know people my age who get the senior discounts, but I can't let myself do that. Last year a journalist wrote about me and referred to me as "white haired" -- I considered that an error, there is a little gray in this hair, what's left of it, but white? Tell me it ain't so.
Hey, I've been trying to remember something. They say memory is the second thing to go, but what is the first thing? I used to know.
Some of us may find this report on MSNBC encouraging in some way.
On this blog we have focused a lot of attention on people at the beginning of their sexual maturity, that is, teenagers. In general we hope they are responsible, we try to teach them the facts so they can make the right decisions, but there is no hard and fast rule about, say, when you are "old enough" for sex, or how long you should wait. We know that almost nobody waits until they marry, but we do tend to hope that teenagers will at least wait until they are in a serious relationship and they have the maturity to keep some kind of grip on their emotions.
We don't talk so much about the other end of the cycle. You kind of think of older people as fading out sexually, having less and less interest in it until it's just not part of their life any more. Maybe it's not like that.
Hey, I've been trying to remember something. They say memory is the second thing to go, but what is the first thing? I used to know.
Some of us may find this report on MSNBC encouraging in some way.
CHICAGO - Getting old does not mean saying so long to sex, U.S. researchers said on Wednesday.
More than three-quarters of American men aged 75 to 85 and half of women that age are still interested in sex, a survey of the elderly by University of Chicago researchers found.
"It's not age per se; that when you get to 80 it's all over with," said sociologist Edward Laumann, who led the study of 3,000 American men and women aged 57 to 85 who lived at home, not in nursing homes.
"It's driven by more proximate factors such as if you become obese, or you're smoking too much, or you contract diabetes. Medications can depress sexual interest. The aging process itself is not a major factor driving these results," he said in a telephone interview. For elderly, sex doesn't have to get old
On this blog we have focused a lot of attention on people at the beginning of their sexual maturity, that is, teenagers. In general we hope they are responsible, we try to teach them the facts so they can make the right decisions, but there is no hard and fast rule about, say, when you are "old enough" for sex, or how long you should wait. We know that almost nobody waits until they marry, but we do tend to hope that teenagers will at least wait until they are in a serious relationship and they have the maturity to keep some kind of grip on their emotions.
We don't talk so much about the other end of the cycle. You kind of think of older people as fading out sexually, having less and less interest in it until it's just not part of their life any more. Maybe it's not like that.
Laumann and his team, who performed a companion survey of younger adults nearly a decade ago, found that sexual dysfunction such as experiencing pain during sex or an inability to achieve orgasm tend to increase as adults reach middle age but then plateaus.
In the survey of elderly Americans, two-thirds of the men and nearly half the women had been sexually active in the past year, they reported in the Journal of Sexual Medicine.
The reasons for losing interest in sex are wrapped up in several physical and mental health factors, Laumann said.
"If sexual health goes to hell, it may be a canary in the mine shaft. It may be a sign of health problems," Laumann said, urging doctors to investigate if sexual problems arise.
...
Erectile dysfunction increases from 31 percent among men aged 57 to 64 to more than 40 percent among older men. Laumann said he had found in other research that 14 percent of men of all ages had tried erectile dysfunction drugs.
Those who have attended college are less likely to have sexual problems than the less-educated, Laumann said, presumably because the educated tend to dismiss myths about sex and aging and are more likely to seek out answers.
Last month, Swedish researchers reported that 70-year-olds of both sexes are having more sex than they did 30 years ago, with 68 percent of married men and 54 percent of women saying they were having sex in 2001, up from 52 percent of men in the early 1970s and 30 percent of women.
23 Comments:
Here's one for all you unstable slimeballs out there in the metropolitan Washington area, land of the pleasant living. Fan mail from the funny farm should be directed to Dinesh D'souza:
"Is there morality without God? This was the topic which I debated with Princeton philosopher Peter Singer on the Riz Khan show on Al-Jazeera Monday. The segment is now up on the web and you can watch it here.
No, I haven't signed on as an Al-Jazeera regular. But the producers of the Riz Khan show on that network seemed a bit disappointed when Richard Dawkins agreed to appear on their show but then threw a tantrum when he found out he was scheduled to debate me. Instead Dawkins insisted on separate segments, with him going second, so that I wouldn't have a chance to challenge his arguments.
Singer is a much braver soul, and truth be told, he strikes me as more articulate and versatile than Dawkins. I suspect the only reason Singer isn't more of an atheist hero is because his social positions are so controversial. Basically Singer has declared that newborns have no rights and can be killed off during the first few weeks of their life, and he would vastly liberalize the rules for infanticide and euthanasia. Singer and I will be debating all this on December 3 at Princeton University. By all means come, but perhaps you should leave the grandparents at home.
In the Al-Jazeera exchange, Singer echoed a theme sounded by some of the street interviews: we don't need God to be good. And in this sense, who can disagree? Of course atheists can be kind and truthful and keep their oaths and contracts. No one is saying that Christians have a monopoly on virtue, or that unbelievers are incapable of it.
Rather, the deeper point is that morality seems built into human nature, and it doesn't have an adequate Darwinian explanation. Singer, an ardent Darwinist, admits this. He said on the show that evolution tells us what we are but it doesn't tell us anything about how we should be. Dawkins too writes that he is Darwinian in his biology but anti-Darwinian in his ethics. According to Dawkins, biology programs selfishness into our genes but we can rise above all that and behave unselfishly. Yet as I pointed out on the show, ants and cheetahs cannot do this. It makes no sense to say, "Bad cheetah! You shouldn't chase after that nice antelope." So where do we evolved primates get this other capacity that frequently operates against our self-interest? This is at least worth reflecting on.
One caller provoked Singer's derision by suggesting that even atheist philosophers get their morality from religion. Singer responded that this was factually wrong. He noted that John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham weren't religious. True, but their utilitarianism is based on the principle of equal respect for human beings, and that is a principle that came into the West because of Christianity. Singer attempted to deny this. He tried to locate this Western egalitarianism in Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, but he offered nothing to substantiate this far-fetched claim. If there were historians watching the show, I am sure they were shaking their heads. Certainly the American founders didn't get "all men are created equal" from the sayings of Epictetus or the meditations of Aurelius. By their own account, they attributed our egual dignity and our inalienable rights to the "Creator."
I'm looking forward to exploring this topic in greater detail with Singer on his home campus in December. But before that, I have my third debate with Christopher Hitchens coming up September 10 in St. Louis. As Hitchens himself put it, all our debates are different because each time we get better at countering what the other guy said the last time. If you'd like to find out more and get tickets, you can do so here."
I'm finding these Dinesh postings annoying, but let me say that it doesn't seem very difficult at all to understand morality as something that emerged from evolution. The most obvious thing is to look at the function of mirror neurons, which fire when we do something and also when we observe someone else doing that thing. The effect of this is that we experience what the people around us experience, at the same time as them: instantaneous empathy
It is not hard to see this adaptation as a biological foundation for human social behavior, e.g., language and all the learning we acquire from our neighbors. It is also not hard to see it as a basis for morality, implementing the golden rule, as it were, in meatware: you are motivated to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, because your nervous system has evolved to empathize with others.
This is way oversimplified, but the point is it doesn't seem like an overwhelming question, Darwinian evolution does offer adequate explanations for morality.
JimK
Well, these mirror neurons are interesting, Jim, but how does evolution account for them? Why would they represent any advantage?
Actually, Jim, I reread your comment and it makes some sense. Forget the last question and let me give it some thought.
Biologists have put much study into answering the question of how altruism and apparently selfless behavior could have evolved by the principle of natural selection. It seems clear to me that cooperative animals, such as humans are, often act for the good of others whom they perceive to be in their group. Military theorists speak of unit cohesion, where soldiers will make all sorts of sacrifices for members of their own forces, but to the detriment of the opposing force. Is this sort of thing not obvious? A major feature of the early Christian communities described by Paul was the support of the less-fortunate within the community. A major feature of xenophobic societies is the demonizations of those outside the group.
As an aside, I know George the Anonymous has made much of early Nazis being gay. I was rereading William Shirer's "Rise and Fall", and realized that Shirer's point was the converse of George's: Gays aren't bad because their like the Nazis, but rather Nazi's are bad because their homosexual. Shirer could hardly say "homosexual" without adding "notorious," "pervert," or "unnatural." His homophobia was so rampant that he couldn't think of anything worse to say of Roehm than that he was queer. There's a whole Holocaust-denier industry built around the notion that German fascism has its roots in gay culture: these people can't make up their minds about whether it's worse to be gay than Nazi, so they present their case that they are in fact the same thing (c.f. this excerpt from The Pink Swastika ). Our Anonymous friend George's arguments along these lines exemplify the methods used by queer-haters to demonize lgbt people, thus justifying such efforts at oppression as CRG's referendum.
Godwin's Law :"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." (cf. Reductio ad Hitlerum ).
"A good rule in most discussions is that the first person to call the other a Nazi automatically loses the argument."
This is way off topic for a post on sexual health... but as I'm really too prudish to feel totally comfortable talking about that, I prefer the thread de-railment - for a while.
I was once asked "Can there be a basis for Morality without God?"
As a Kantian Realist, I'd have to say that morality *requires* the non-existence of God.
Tell me, is a prisoner who only obeys arbitrary commands when tasered or whipped into submission acting in a moral way?
Similarly, is someone under the omnipotent and omniscient eye of a Great Policeman in the Sky acting "morally" when obeying arbitrary commands, lest they be put in a torture chamber forever?
Morality to me is doing the right thing, even when no-one is watching and you wouldn't get caught.
An omniscient deity with the power to condemn you to hell means no act in accordance with said deity's whims can be moral, only the result of coercion.
An act which you believe to be right, loving, and just though tempered with mercy which you know will send you to hell, but you do anyway because you know it is right, just, loving and merciful is the height of morality.
The question arises though, how do you know what is right? For that, I must fall back on the Kantian idea of the Categorical Imperative. Start with the Golden Rule. 1 Corinthians 13 is a good one too, regardless of whether one is Christian or not (I'm not).
One question I ask of believers: if their Deity-of-Choice appeared in the traditional burning bush or whatever, and told them that for one month, they have a blanket pardon to do anything they wish - rape, murder, spitting on sidewalks, voting Democrat... and there would be no punishment, what would they do?
Then a second question - if their Deity, instead of permitting them, commanded them to perform moral abominations in order to fulfil His Divine Will, would they do it, as Abraham would have? Or would they tell said Deity to go do something biologically impossible for mere mortals?
An equivalent question is - does might make right, when the might is omnipotent?
Alternately, is God moral just because he or she is God?
rrjr
Rereading my posts, I always see that I have a real problem with homophones. Is that ironic?
"A good rule in most discussions is that the first person to call the other a Nazi automatically loses the argument."
Well, I don't know if you noticed, Robert but TTF started that discussion.
"Rereading my posts, I always see that I have a real problem with homophones. Is that ironic?"
Tell it to your psych, Robert.
"Rereading my posts, I always see that I have a real problem with homophones. Is that ironic?"
Tell it to your psych, Robert.
"Similarly, is someone under the omnipotent and omniscient eye of a Great Policeman in the Sky acting "morally" when obeying arbitrary commands, lest they be put in a torture chamber forever?
Morality to me is doing the right thing, even when no-one is watching and you wouldn't get caught.
An omniscient deity with the power to condemn you to hell means no act in accordance with said deity's whims can be moral, only the result of coercion."
I understand your confusion, Zoe. You should sit down some time and read through the New Testament.
It tells Christians "it is for freedom's sake you were set free".
The principle of Christianity is that God has forgiven the sins of those who love him and they respond by wanting to please him. "Perfect love casts out all fear."
No longer under condemnation, Christians are free to act morally.
All that hell and torture you speak of went to the cross.
Rigby's corollary to Godwin's Law: the first person to insult everyone else under the cloak of anonymity loses the argument.
Anonynous said: "No longer under condemnation, Christians are free to act morally."
It's too bad that some of the so-called "Christians" that anonymously troll in this site do not act morally.
take the log out of your own eye before you take the splinter out of your neighbor's
In Massachusetts, the virulent anti-lgbt group MassResistance is using the same tactic that our own Showernuts and oponents of gay marriage in California are using (Proposition 8 ) to bypass legislative procedures: referenda on lgbt-positive civil rights passed through representative government. Here's an article, oddly from a local Louisiana newspaper: Gay Marriage Opponents Seek to Reverse New Law
It's worth noting that while gay marriage was finally approved in California by a ruling from the Supreme Court of that state, it actually passed the legislature twice, but was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger both times.
LGBT rights are making slow progress through local and state legislatures as well as courts, while anti-lgbt groups are fighting rearguard actions via referenda and constitutional amendments. Does anyone know whether the same sort of things (referenda) happened with other civil rights efforts (such as interracial marriage and other nondiscrimination policies)?
All partisanship aside, I have always felt that referenda are a poor way to conduct a democracy, since they generally attract only a small amount of the electorate on any one-issue vote. Here in our local government in Virginia we often have ballot measures on things such as bonds for school and public works construction, and when I go and vote I'm asked to make an on-the-spot decision on issues that I've never heard about and have not studied. My guess is that in MoCo this fall, most of the voters will not have heard about or thought about the trans-inclusive nondiscrimination law, and won't know how to vote; or, at best, they will only have heard sound-bites or read parts of a pamphlet. I think our founding fathers were wise to create a representative type of government for our country, in which we employ legislators to investigate bills. It means government is conducted by professionals, not by advertisement campaigns.
rrjr
http://www.dailycomet.com/article/20080815/APN/808151201
PFOX, god bless them, sent out an email (I get these on my work email, who knows why) describing lgbt people as unacceptable, unfaithful, disloyal, destructive and dangerous, and comparing us to liars, thieves and murderers. This was an article from a religious advisor to the Illinois Family Institute (Peter LaBarbera, known as Porno Pete, 's group). The tag copied the GLSEN logo, and advised it's recipients not to be respectful of LGBT people.
I thought PFOX sells itself as mostly concerned with ending "harassment" of and "discrimination" against hypothetical "ex-gays."
Sounds to me they just don't like queer people. Do we know anyone who blogs here like that?
Mmmmh.
rrjr
All that hell and torture you speak of went to the cross.
Tell that to the inmates at Guantanamo Bay, guests of the most christian nation on earth.
Robert said...
PFOX, god bless them, sent out an email (I get these on my work email, who knows why) describing lgbt people as unacceptable, unfaithful, disloyal, destructive and dangerous, and comparing us to liars, thieves and murderers. This was an article from a religious advisor to the Illinois Family Institute (Peter LaBarbera, known as Porno Pete, 's group). The tag copied the GLSEN logo, and advised it's recipients not to be respectful of LGBT people.
I don't believe you. Prove it!
Of course you believe me, dear, you just want to be annoying.
Nevertheless, here's a cut-and-paste version of the email (it's a mystery to me why I feed into this anti-social behavior of yours, but I suppose honest people suchas RT and I recoil at the unfounded accusations of lying):
From: webrequest-bounces@pfox.org on behalf of PFOX
Sent: Sat 8/16/2008 8:45 AM
To: webrequest@pfox.org
Subject: Respecting Homosexuals
Respecting Homosexuals
7/30/2008 7:00:00 AM
By Thorin Anderson -Illinois Family Institute
Whenever there is conflict between homosexual activists and conservatives regarding the issues such as the acceptance of same sex marriage, we on the right are accused of a lack of respect for homosexuals.
But, I would like to make one thing clear. The debate is not about respecting people, but about accepting bad behavior. There are many human behaviors which we conservatives believe to be unacceptable. They range from lying and cheating to promiscuity before or during marriage. They include murder and rape and a host of other deeds, criminal or otherwise. To say that we don't respect someone when we disagree with their conduct is to suggest that confronting any bad behavior is inherently disrespectful. Are we to stop speaking about all wrong conduct? Should we stop confronting lying, stealing, or murder? Such a suggestion would be ludicrous.
All humans are worthy of respect as humans, period. But it is utter folly to imagine that behaviors people engage in are automatically respectable simply because a certain number of people are involved in them. Sad to say, many things we human beings do are not only unworthy of respect, but are destructive and dangerous. There is a reason why no one writes in any detail, in public, regarding the activities of homosexuals. And there is a reason why homosexuals have significantly shorter than average life expectancies. There is not a newspaper in the country that would detail their private conduct, and most of our stomachs could not handle it. Yet, we are told we MUST accept such conduct as perfectly normal. Get out your Websters and look up "normal." Homosexuality in no way fits the definition of "normal." And, it requires no special genius to understand that!
No doubt many practitioners have found themselves harassed or worse by those who don't respect homosexuals and have taken it upon themselves to mock or injure them. Such actions are wrong. It is legitimate to demand respect as people, but it is absolutely illegitimate to demand respect for conduct that is simply disgusting on its face. And, consider the homosexual's attitude toward such virtues of fidelity and loyalty. No self-respecting woman would tolerate infidelity in her husband, but in the homosexual community, infidelity is not only allowed, it is a given. It is ironic that homosexuals demand such respect from the general community when they quite obviously have little respect for themselves or one another. Such proclivities reveal that, in fact, the homosexual lifestyle really is much less about deep abiding relationships than satisfying inappropriate sexual desires.
Let us be clear about something: Christian conservatives oppose the wanton satisfying of inappropriate sexual desires in anyone whether straight or homosexual.
Those of us who disagree with homosexual conduct based upon the principles of the Bible and nature can do nothing to stop homosexuals from practicing their chosen lifestyle. But it is an egregious violation of our freedoms, principles, and character to demand that we accept it as normal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thorin Anderson is a member of the Pastor Advisory Council to Illinois Family Institute and the pastor of Parkwood Baptist Church on the south side of Chicago.
Pastor Anderson is also the President of Men for Christ, an association that organizes annual weekend men's rallies in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois on a rotating basis. For more information on these events, please visit www.MenforChrist.us.
http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=33974
HERE
“Let us be clear about something: Christian conservatives oppose the wanton satisfying of inappropriate sexual desires in anyone whether straight or homosexual.”
Which is of course why they are working JUST as hard to make premarital sex and the adultery of remarriage illegal too.
Yes Pastor Anderson, your hypocrisy is quite clear.
Post a Comment
<< Home