I recently got to weigh in re religiosity, conservativism, and hypocrisy on The Daily Beast.

Check out “Christian Right-Wingers Love Porn: New Studies Suggest the Bible Belt Has A Kinky Side” (10/11/14) right — here

In the piece, I talk about how, when individuals and subcultures put many strictures on sexuality, it’s not surprising that people begin to feel limited, trapped, and/or in crisis. In other words, the more and more parameters you put on something, the greater the likelihood of people freaking out.

Enjoy a great article, including my insights – what do you think?

4 thoughts on “Do as I say, not as I do – Re religiosity, conservativism, & hypocrisy on The Daily Beast

  • October 23, 2014 at 6:11 am

    Chauntelle, mean no unkindness here but…this is an curiously unbalanced if not “mentally spastic” article.
    Take care. Tim

    • October 23, 2014 at 6:50 am

      Hi Tim,

      Thanks for your comment. When you are referring to the “curiously unbalanced,” “mentally spastic” article, are you talking about my link back referral here (??) or are you talking about Aurora Snow’s piece on The Daily Beast (in which I’m quoted)? If it’s the latter, I’m sure Aurora would appreciate your feedback re her assessment of the JAMA study and/or her overall writing style – perhaps you are seeing something she and her editor(s) are not?

      Regarding the article itself, I found her efforts to engage the implications of a study that suggests people say one thing and do another interesting. I also appreciate her willingness to engage such topics on a platform as widely read as TDB.

      Take care too!

      • October 27, 2014 at 11:49 pm

        Please accept my apology for not clarifying my statements. give me a couple of days and I’ll work up a coherent response.
        The main issue, as I see it, really centers on this weird notion of and use of the term “Bible-belt”.
        I’ve lived/worked (from Temp Services to Legislative body) in the Mid-West and the South and have known those areas..their cultural “anomalies” very well.
        Will get back to you soon. (to be honest, I wasn’t sure you’d respond TK..Thanks
        for doing that)
        Thanks, Tim

  • November 13, 2014 at 9:44 am

    Here’s ‘Part 1’ of my response. Sorry I’ve been slow to post.
    I did not review the study in the Archives of Sexual Behaviour because I wasn’t inclined to pay $40…I might do that.
    So I don’t know how accurately they performed their info gathering and data interpretation.

    The issue…the accusation?…of “hypocrisy” , as stated and defined…is a bit odd. t
    (I called it, not you Chauntelle, spastic and unbalanced)

    Well, it’s the “Bible Belt” …as they call it.
    Which means precisely what?
    They very loosely define, if at all, an aspect of the Culture using a term that has no ‘clearly defined terms’.
    Does ‘Bible Belt’ mean..?
    That there are a high concentration of churches within set geographical boundaries?
    That a large number of people, in a clearly defined geographical area, embraces the same religious beliefs?
    Does it mean ‘traditional Fundamentalist Christians’? (regular church goers with staunch spiritual
    and therefore moral convictions but often not well educated or ‘perceived as religious puppets’?)
    Does it mean ‘church sitters’? (people who go to church/may identify theirselves as Christian but
    are actually there more for the ‘stabilising social aspect’)
    Does it mean people who are well educated..and are spiritually/morally ‘conservative’?
    (actually have a ‘functioning cortex’ and have deeply studied/considered their convictions)
    Seems to me that ‘Bible Belt’ is a term of convenience (on the level of ‘Pop’ terminology) and a poorly defined term…and pejorative terminology.

    Having lived in the Mid-West and the South (now in Colorado), off and on, over many decades, I have seen those so-called ‘Bible Belt’ areas up close…very close.
    I have yet to see any Academic..or even ‘Media pundits’…accurately define those areas.
    I reject the ‘formulaic labeling’ so often employed by ‘learned statisticians’.
    In other words…to judge a very large group of people based upon observing publicly very vocal religious personalities/leaders…and, possibly, ‘church attendance figures’…and ‘surveys’…etc.
    Is a serious error…and does injustice to those living there.

    As for Hypocrisy:
    Hypocrisy can be found widely throughout American culture…it can be found at every level..
    in every ‘group’..whether ‘Conservative’..’Liberal’.. or in between.
    Education..Government..Churches…Political…Media…you name the group and hypocrisy
    will be found there.
    Being a ‘hair over 60’ I’ve experienced a very wide range of people and work situations.
    My life experience encompasses the ‘mundane to the seriously bizarre’ (and I do mean bizarre)
    I am a dedicated student of History.
    (spent 3 ‘tours of duty’ in the University System..currently have ‘way way too many books’ in my house)

    I am a stickler for clear Definitions.
    So, if we acknowledge the classical definition of Hypocrisy…
    …absolutely no group of people(s) lacks it. (religious…non religious)

    Obviously…I will not defend, ever, ‘religious hypocrisy’ (I experienced that perverse oppression as a child and through my teen years…though, a rational,
    balanced, defensible spiritual orientation emerged despite that)
    I am very very careful when using the word Hypocrite.
    A Hypocrite is, philosophically/theologically, a seriously dark being…willfully and knowingly evil.
    (interesting, isn’t it, that to define the words Good or Evil there must exist a ‘non-material’ ultimate reference point for Truth…as anything less relegates
    that definition to mere human opinion/desire)

    I define Hypocrisy as being the action/words of any person who willfully and knowingly engages in Deception(s).
    In other words…outright Liars. ‘Intentional and unrepentant’.
    What this means, as I see it, is that while a person’s actions can be seen as Hypocritical..fouled up, they may not, in the core of their being, be unrepentant..intentional Hypocrites.
    How so?
    People can truly know and believe something to be Right…True..and still stumble..and even badly.
    Buddhist thought recognises this..as does, curiously in rare instances, Biblical thought.
    (I’d be happy to logically back that up if you’d like)
    This does not mean that a person who ‘stumbles’, and does contrary to their stated beliefs, is necessarily a Hypocrite. It does mean that they have possibly temporarily ‘fouled up’…stumbled.

    But..the Hypocrite will lie…refuse to acknowledge their transgression…blame others (sociopathic)…
    or ‘bury it’ and hope they are not exposed. (and keep wearing the dual face)
    I have seen this behaviour from Politicians, Judges, Law Enforcement, Academics, Pastors, Parents..Buddhists, Christians, Atheists…etc. etc. etc.
    I have also seen the opposite…
    People who got into a bind..violated their deeply held Truth(s), sometimes dreadfully, and then acknowledged it..and took responsibility for it even in the face of possible Legal/Social consequences.
    Then…they actually began the work necessary to correct. Those people do actually exist.
    How often are they acknowledged..? (especially by any of us who throw the stones?)

    Again,the true Hypocrite is…an unrepentant Liar. Does not care how their actions trash others.
    (and, again, a definitive trait of narcissists and sociopaths)

    In my email to you I promised that I would try to keep from being to wordy. (doing my best)
    Being a bona fide Nerd…I am compelled to construct my Argument with clearly defined assertions.
    I have attempted to define Bible Belt and Hypocrisy a little more clearly…as the article you linked to is essentially engaged in calling a certain group, and only that group, Hypocrites.
    (and as stated, I will never defend bad behaviours…anyone’s..my own included)

    I will complete Part 2 of my response in a few days.
    Stay warm…Tim

Comments are closed.