If sex is only for reproduction then the Pope still has it wrong

I'm talking about the rhythm method, or per the old joke:

"What is rhythm and blues?"

"A Catholic form of birth control and the results nine months later."

And, in reality, it's the one form of birth control approved by Holy Mother Church.

But, as Jesus allegedly told Pharisees about Mosaic law on divorce, maybe that even is a concession to human weakness, if one inserts oneself into the shoes of orthodox Catholic theological teaching.

Because, if sex is ONLY for reproduction, the Pope, if not a hypocrite, should command Catholics to turn the rhythm method on its head and have sex ONLY during female fertility periods. Nothing else is allowed. Especially for men, now that we know what's going on, because:


-->

That said, let's shift gears here a sec.

I'm kind o surprised that Joe Smith didn't look at the golden plates one last time with his Urim and Thummim and combine a new revelation about this with plural marriage. Since the myth of menstrual synchronization is just that, it would kill multiple birds with one stone.

"Not tonight, dear, I can only sleep with Hepzibah, my Wife No. 3!"

After all, to extend the guys with red slippers logically out, it should be considered a sin, since men can control when they emit sperm, which women can't with egg cells, not to "scatter one's seed" as much as heterosexually possible (within the authoritarian male confines of marriage, of course).

But, back to the guys with the funky headgear, not the funky spectacles.

The appeal to natural law also falls flat.

First, animals have gay sex. And oral sex. And all sorts of other verschnizzle.

And, re masturbation? They do that, too, including any dogs in the Vatican, if they're male, humping the leg of its current occupant, Francis the Talking Pope.

And, if we really want to trump the guys with the gilded house? To get back to Joe Smith, the popes are sinning by not being married and procreating. Ditto monks etc.

#PopEvPsych has another fail - sex and sexuality differences

It's one of the biggest "commonplaces" of Pop Evolutionary Psychology, and somewhat of more restrained "legitimate" (I reserve the right for the scare quotes) evolutionary psychology that men are from Mars and women are from Venus in terms of sexual desire, sexual drive levels, and, above all, sexual roving eyes and interest in not being fully monogamous.

Taint quite so, says research around new studies trying to finally find a "female Viagra" or equavalent. Most of the women in most of the studies, it seems, haven't lost their Jones because of kids at home, housework, or whatever. Rather, familiarity has bred, if not contempt, ennui.

And, indeed, if I were into the "just so stories" of Pop Ev Psych, I could easily make up one to explain this, that has at least as much actual scientific grounding as do most those of Pop Ev Psychers.

First, we know that, in some mammalian species, the female of the species can do more than prevent immediate womb implantation of a fertilized embryo. She can delay immediate fertilization of an egg cell by sperm inside her uterus.

Why? Why do this?

Because a better male, evolutionarily speaking, may come along.

Well, there's no proof that human females do that. But, given that in the hunter-gatherer times of the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness so beloved by "legit" ev psychers and Pop Ev Psych types alike (despite somewhat shaky scientific grounding), a child would be nursed until age 3, in part as a contraceptive, but that, in part because of that and in part because of the simplicity of life there, said child was ready to do a certain amount of work by age 5, why WOULDN'T women have the seven-year-itch after four years?

Further confirmation of how Pop Ev Psych is wrong?  Women lie as much as men about how much sex they have. They just underreport, rather than overreport.

Lying for the sake of New Atheism

"Atheists have better sex!"

Sounds like a great recruitment tool, especially for a Gnu Atheist like P.Z. Myers trying to recruit cadres of shock troops to fight the evil religionists.

So, when a survey notes such a fact, or apparently does, Greta Christina writes it up at AlterNet and PZ then blogs about it.

But, not so fast, Mr. Cadre Recruiter.

First, the survey says nothing about sex being better for the irreligious, just that they're less guilty about it. Arguably, that means it's more satisfying, but for someone like a Penitente, or a masochist, guilt may be part of the fun, and I mean that seriously.

And, PZ lied, or at least pulled an advertising fudge of incomplete comparisons, anyway. Atheism doesn't top all religions on sexual satisfaction. Per the bottom of the story — Jews and Unitarians are even more comfortable. Per Twain or whomever, never let the facts stand in the way of a good story. But many Gnus, including PZ, like to lump all religions together.

That then points up yet another issue where this survey is unscientific and badly so.

Jews and Unitarians are known, if even stereotyped, for their political liberalism. The majority of Jews are in the U.S. are either Conservative or Reform, and so, along with Unitarians, are also religiously liberal and nonliteralist.

Mormons, who topped the sexual guilt list, are just the opposite. Ditto in general for Baptists. But, folks like Catholics, Lutherans or Methodists run a gamut of religious and political liberalism.

However, the survey didn't appear to do any differentiation with respondents.

So, what we appear to have is a more liberal attitude on life in general being reflected in sexual guilt or lack thereof.

Finally, by being self-reported, it comes close to some of the Pop Ev Psych that PZ rightly deplores.

So, to sum up, the survey is pretty much crap, as is the trumpeting of it.

Beyond that, in terms of percentage of college graduates, or percentage of people making more than $75,000 a year, secularists, perhaps somewhat more broad a term than atheists, are only right around average. I don't P.Z. wil be trumpeting that one any time soon.