This popped up in my Digg feed this morning:
You might think that wanting to be tied up and whipped is a guaranteed sign of psychological distress, but according to a recent study, people who participate in bondage and dominance/submission play may be happier and less anxious than those with more conventional sexual tastes.Public health researchers studied 20,000 Australians to determine that despite the stereotype that people with off-the-beaten-path sexual interests are somehow damaged, men who take part in BDSM score significantly lower on a scale of mental distress than other men.
The prurient mind immediately wonders if there is a difference between the anxiety levels of those who are beaten, and those who do the beating; being tied up and flogged does seem like the sort of thing that is supposed to make you anxious. But that's not really where I'm going with this.
My secondmost immediate thought was, of course, of evangelical Christians. Specifically, the fact that they report being happier than the rest of us. The article in Christianity Today argues that this is a function of the social support provided by an inclusive community. But I wonder if it isn't, in part, the decision to stand out from the community that leads to greater self-reported happiness. People who have decided to do anything so far outside of the mainstream are people who a) have a powerful preference and b) have satisfied that preference. The mainstream, on the other hand, contains all the people who have extreme preferences, but not the willpower to buck convention and satisfy them.
Against this, of course, are the people who have stayed in the evangelical Christian community since birth. But the churn rate is quite high, which is why we all know so many people who used to be religious, and also quite a few who have found religion in adulthood. In modern America, it's relatively easy to exit a religious community, either by a series of steps through progressively less demanding congregations, or by moving across country and letting your parents think you're still going to church. And I'd imagine that those who have the courage to leave a church that isn't satisfying them are also happier than the run of the mill.
Most people don't realize that the evangelical movement as we know it today is a product of the 60s and is anything but old time religion. My grandparents, both sides were Midwestern farmers, were very religious but anything but evangelical. Evangelicals used to be called "holly rollers". They were anything but numerous or mainstream in America.
The evangelical movement that we know today took off in the 1970s and is the baby boom ying to the hippy Woodstock yang. Evangelicals tuned in, turned on and dropped out just in a different way. They dropped out and started educating their kids at home and going to church three times a week. It is very much a baby-boomer response to the world and the culture wars of the last 30 years very much an intra generational conflict among the children of the 1960s.
In that sense BDSM is just another "alternative lifestyle" that grew out of the 60s like the evangelical movement did. It seems that people are happy in either ditch.
John writes: "Evangelicals used to be called "holy rollers". They were anything but numerous or mainstream in America."
There were tons of them in the South decades before the 60s. Just read Mencken's dispatches from the Scopes Trial for the sickening details.
This is actually very good news. What with issues going on in my life, I've recently been feeling really down and depressed, just getting up each morning is an ordeal. But I know someone who has an electric cattle prod ...
This is just a whole new level of dumb.
"There were tons of them in the South decades before the 60s. Just read Mencken's dispatches from the Scopes Trial for the sickening details."
But they really were hillbillies and on the fringes of society. Further, what they were back in the day is not what we would call evangelicals of today. They were not a political movement. They didn't have multi-million dollar stadium churches and were anything but middle or upper class. Evangelicals today are middle and upper class. Go to any beedroom community in the South or midwest and you will see what I am talking about.
The old hillbilley Southern tent revival Christians may be the forefathers of of the modern evangelicals but a part of the 60s generation took it an adopted it as its own and created what we now know as the movement.
The answer is in (b). Far to many people today don't do what they want because they are far to concerned on being socially accepted.
Everyone has preference. Those who make sure their preferences are fulfilled are happier.
...being tied up and flogged does seem like the sort of thing that is supposed to make you anxious.
Can't speak about people being flogged, but I used to know somebody who liked being tied up: It was the only time she was ever calm, sane, and comfortable with herself. The rest of the time, she was the unhappiest and most anxious person I've ever known.
That's not data. It's an anecdote.
But I read up on the whole thing a bit at the time, and having read what a lot of those people have to say about themselves, I'd guess that this study involved self-reporting and is basically hooey. It seems clear that folks who enjoy that stuff are a lot happier doing it than they would be otherwise, and that's all to the good, but they don't seem to me to be very happy in absolute terms, day in and day out.
Not being one of them, I could be entirely wrong. But when you've got members of a disliked and misunderstood (yet intensely interesting) minority group being interviewed by outsiders, I think they're going to circle the wagons a bit. Anybody would.
John writes: "But they really were hillbillies and on the fringes of society. Further, what they were back in the day is not what we would call evangelicals of today. They were not a political movement. They didn't have multi-million dollar stadium churches and were anything but middle or upper class. Evangelicals today are middle and upper class. Go to any beedroom community in the South or midwest and you will see what I am talking about."
Been there. The hillbillies are still there, but some of the younger 'billies have gotten better jobs and the landsharks like Benny Hinn and Joel Osteen have moved in on them. They still believe the same old bullshit, though.
You're right about the political movement part.
Demonspawn writes: "Far to many people today don't do what they want because they are far to concerned on being socially accepted."
I hope that sentence isn't your best effort.
They are not hillbillies. Honestly, there are few real hillbillies left anymore. They are the middle class and children of the middle class kids who grew up in the 1960s.
Last I checked, "holy rollers" referred specifically to Pentecostals, due to the tendency of being stricken by the spirit to lead to rolling in the aisles. Evangelicals shouldn't be confused with Pentecostals, even if the former adopted some of the stylistic touches that originated with the latter.
Lots of evangelicals are Pentecostals. They speak in tongues and roll around, the whole bit. There is no one church called "evangelical". To me an evangelical is synonomous with any strict Protestant Sect that is separate from the old mainline Protestant churches.
The satisfaction of a major preference is, by definition, going to mean you are happier than you would otherwise be. I would guess that people who go so far as to engage in S&M are also going farther in satisfying their other major, non-sexual preferences.
"The article in Christianity Today argues that this is a function of the social support provided by an inclusive community. But I wonder if it isn't, in part, the decision to stand out from the community that leads to greater self-reported happiness."
You're both right. The happiness results from finding a socially-supportive community which shares your values/preferences, which stands outside the mainstream community. There is a BDSM community which is pretty supportive of its members, and it's pretty easy to find in the age of the internet.
You lot should be ecstatic by these standards!
John again: "They are not hillbillies. Honestly, there are few real hillbillies left anymore. They are the middle class and children of the middle class kids who grew up in the 1960s."
They loaded up the truck and they moved to gated communities. They still hate them thar high-falutin' folk, though.
John's got the sociology basically correct. Frum talks about this stuff in his book on the 70s. The 70s saw the fading of the old, buttoned-up name-brand mainline churches, and the sudden mainstreaming of a warmly emotional and expressive Protestantism (something similar happened on the Catholic side with the emergence of the Charismatic movement). As Frum's book demonstrates fairly conclusively, that movement from restraint to expressiveness was the general trend in practically all facets of American life in the 70s. Evangelical culture tracks very closely with mainstream American culture. In fact, I would hesitate to differentiate too sharply between the two, given the enormous popularity of various Evangelical authors. Over the past few decades, there's been a huge Evangelical presence in pop psych, personal finance, and self-help books.
Re: Evangelicals used to be called "holly rollers". They were anything but numerous or mainstream in America.
Not true. It's Pentacostals who used to be called "Holy Rollers". There's a huge gap between Pentacostals and Evangelicals.
Re: The evangelical movement that we know today took off in the 1970s
I suspect Billy Graham would be surprised to hear that. Today's evangelicalism dates back to mid-century when Graham and other moderates worked to free "low church" Protestantism from the hard-core Fundamentalism of the Bob Jones sort. Yes, the Jesus Movement gave it a shot in the arm, but it was a going concern well before that.
Amy P writes: "Frum talks about this stuff in his book on the 70s. The 70s saw the fading of the old, buttoned-up name-brand mainline churches, and the sudden mainstreaming of a warmly emotional and expressive Protestantism (something similar happened on the Catholic side with the emergence of the Charismatic movement)."
Somehow I don't associate "warmly emotional" with the Religious Right.
MLAJ,
That's because you don't know much about it. I suggest listening to the Dave Ramsey show (that's a very popular radio show on personal finance with huge crossover appeal) or reading "Soft Patriarchs" to get a feel for that side of the Evangelical world. You may hate that stuff, but you'll understand why "warmly emotional and expressive" is the description I went with. I grew up with it and it isn't my cup of tea, but that is a fair description. There's a whole world out there that you barely know anything about, and it's going to be hard to learn more if you restrict yourself to being the liberal Fred Phelps, scourge of right-of-center Atlantic blogs.
Re: Somehow I don't associate "warmly emotional" with the Religious Right.
Don't confuse the Religious Right with evaneglical Christianity. The Religious Right (which has a large Catholic and even a small Jewish contingent by the way) is like a parasite that battened on the evangelical churches as hosts of least resistance since these churches were very young and lacked the long-term traditions and scholarship that might have given them a defense.
--slow-claps for Amy P.--
Megan's second most immediate thought is probably as inaccurate as Christianity Today's interpretation of why evangelicals report being happier.
The primary purpose of taking a literalist approach to Christianity, which you find in both Pentecostal and evangelical Christianity, is what it provides emotionally. For example, when you have a situation that is not going right, you pray with the expectation of 1) resolution (which will make you happy) or 2) mental comfort from God (which, again, will make you happy).
So when you add the actual component of prayer and communion with a perceived God, to things like community and social support provided by the high level of church involvement, it leads to a type of satisfaction.
Of course the drags on that happiness and satisfaction that lead to churn or people leaving the church (or backsliding), is the sometimes oppressive regulation of behavior, the moments of hypocrisy (albeit not unique to Christianity), and the realization (or lack of realization) that the true nature of Christianity is not designed to solve all earthly problems, heal mankind, or make all things perfect. The true nature of Christianity is to foster love between men, and then, love for God and a return to God.
Most people miss this, and grow weary, because true love is the hardest thing. When a Beatle sings, "All You Need is Love" he is presenting the most complicated equation as though it was mere addition or subtraction.
Amy P replies: "That's because you don't know much about it. I suggest listening to the Dave Ramsey show (that's a very popular radio show on personal finance with huge crossover appeal) or reading "Soft Patriarchs" to get a feel for that side of the Evangelical world. You may hate that stuff, but you'll understand why "warmly emotional and expressive" is the description I went with. I grew up with it and it isn't my cup of tea, but that is a fair description. There's a whole world out there that you barely know anything about, and it's going to be hard to learn more if you restrict yourself to being the liberal Fred Phelps, scourge of right-of-center Atlantic blogs."
Hey, Amy, I've been dealing with the Xian right since the late '70s, which is probably before you were born. I know what they are, and I know who they are, and "Dave Ramsey" is a fart in the evangelical windstorm. It's fine if you want to pretend that the religious right hasn't been a cancer on American politics for 3 decades, but pardon me if I disagree. I know better.
Dave Ramsey has 3 million radio listeners. If that's not big, I don't know what is. The thing is, the Evangelical movement is huge and extremely decentralized, and denominations have been steadily losing importance. Also, it's an extremely dynamic environment, with many separate centers of influence, rather than a top-down, lock-step thing. It's really hard to keep up with what's going on--I just barely manage, not being inside. First-hand knowledge from the late seventies doesn't cut it. It doesn't really help to read the secular press, since the mainstream media tends to focus excessively on personalities who are proportionately much less important than they were in the late 70s or the 80s. To keep up, you've got to have friends in the movements and read the Evangelical press. (I mostly coast on talking to relatives.)
The problem is is that you are thinking entirely in terms of politics, while politics is really only the tip of the iceberg.
Dave Ramsey has 3 million radio listeners. If that's not big, I don't know what is. The thing is, the Evangelical movement is huge and extremely decentralized, and denominations have been steadily losing importance. Also, it's an extremely dynamic environment, with many separate centers of influence, rather than a top-down, lock-step thing. It's really hard to keep up with what's going on--I just barely manage, not being inside. First-hand knowledge from the late seventies doesn't cut it. It doesn't really help to read the secular press, since the mainstream media tends to focus excessively on personalities who are proportionately much less important than they were in the late 70s or the 80s. To keep up, you've got to have friends in the movements and read the Evangelical press. (I mostly coast on talking to relatives.)
The problem is is that you are thinking entirely in terms of politics, while politics is really only the tip of the iceberg.
MLAJ, this word "evangelical" you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Amy has it exactly right. You need to get out more.
Further, evangelicals and holy rollers are NOT at all the same thing, though some evangelicals may be holy rollers. Very tiny subset, though.
So does this mean religious sects that practice mortification of the flesh (I'm thinking Opus Dei and Filipino flagellants here) would be getting the best of both worlds and be exceptionally happy?
Amy whines: "Dave Ramsey has 3 million radio listeners. If that's not big, I don't know what is."
Whatever, anyway, that was an impostor at 11:11. But no, politics ideally would be a minor part of life, but when the Bushpigs took control of the country it became every so-called Christian's duty to actively fight against them, and when much of the Evangelical community stayed on the sidelines (or worse, veered right), they sold their souls to the Repiglican Party.
Yancey, I'd buy that reasoning, but I'd like to toss in a few notions of my own.
First off, to have a successful BDSM relationship, you have to 1. reflect on what it is you want kink-wise (which is likely very idiosyncratic), 2. decide what you want out of a relationship (without a script), 3. explain both of these things to at least one other person, and 4. negotiate a mutually satisfactory outcome with that person, which puts you way ahead of many vanilla relationships (although by no means all, and not every kinkster is a successful kinkster). This reflective and interpersonal behavior is something the community inculcates even in many of its apostates, and is pretty much in line with what couples and sex therapists will try to get people to do. Just being more aware of your own needs and desires and having good relationship skills can make a huge difference in subjective well being. I also wonder if "the family that prays together stays together" thing is in sometimes similar in encouraging reflective thought and intimate communication.
Secondly, a lot of masochists are effectively self-medicating with their own body chemistry, much in the same way that self-injurers or people that engage in heavy exercise do. Beta endorphins are big mojo. Other expressions of BDSM surely have their therapeutic effects as well, but are less well understood and more noisy in their statistical significance.
OK, Megan mentions religion and kinky sex and the discussion immediately focuses on.....RELIGION?
I guess all the people with a NORMAL sense of priorities are on Second Life or something.