What we buy versus what makes us happy

Geoffrey Miller has just published a new book, Spent: Sex, Evolution and Consumer Behavior. I haven't read it yet, but I am now ordering it, based on Miller's terrific prior work (see here, for example). In the meantime, I did enjoy this NYT blog review of Spent, which includes this provocative question:

List the ten most expensive things (products, services or experiences) that you have ever paid for (including houses, cars, university degrees, marriage ceremonies, divorce settlements and taxes). Then, list the ten items that you have ever bought that gave you the most happiness. Count how many items appear on both lists.

If you're looking for simplistic answers, you won't get them from Miller. I won't spoil the answers he obtained or his analysis of those answers, but you'll find them here. [addendum] I found this one item refreshingly honest. Refreshingly, because I know a lot of parents, I see their faces, I hear their complaints (and their exhultations). I know that it's PC to say that having children is a continuous wonderful joy and that all parents are glad they did had children. Miller's research suggests that the answer is not this simple:

[Here's an answer that appears [much more on the ‘expensive’ than on the ‘happy’ lists [includes] Children, including child care, school fees, child support, fertility treatments. Costly, often disappointing, usually ungrateful. Yet, the whole point of life, from a Darwinian perspective. Parental instincts trump consumer pleasure-seeking.

Continue ReadingWhat we buy versus what makes us happy

Yea, Though He Walks Through the Shadow of Nooky

I felt sympathy for Mark Sanford at first. I did. Gone are the days when journalists would respect a politician's private life: it must be awful to live in the D.C. fishbowl. And, after all, he wasn't just screwing around. The guy fell in love. We can all relate to that. But Sanford lost me when he compared himself to King David. I mean, c'mon. King David? (Does that sort of thing really work with "values voters"? Do they think, Oh, yeah--Governor Sanford is just like King David, who was J.C.'s ancestor, sort of, and a great king and a really nifty songwriter, so let's let Sanford keep his job, at least until his son starts sleeping with his concubines--?) Talk about hubris. Anyhoo. Chris Kelly blogs for the Huffington Post and writes for Bill Maher and is, IMHO, one of the funniest men in America. Yesterday, on HuffPo, Kelly posted a piece about Sanford titled God is My Doorman, which highlights Governor Itchypant's egomania and translates some of his Godspeak. Enjoy. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kelly/god-is-my-doorman-mark-sa_b_223472.html

Continue ReadingYea, Though He Walks Through the Shadow of Nooky

Going Off Script

Mind you, I am not defending Governor Sanford, not really. But I have to admit to being pleasantly surprised at his current stance, vis a vis his affair. "I will be able to die knowing that I had met my soul mate," he said in an interview. So many public figures indulge in affairs, get caught, and then drag the whole thing out in a back yard lot, pour gasoline on it, and set it ablaze in a spasm of self-loathing apologetics. I suppose the most dramatic was Jimmy Swaggart, weeping openly on television, going through a self-flagellation of Medieval proportions, at least psychologically. And he was "forgiven" by his followers. It seemed for a time that Sanford's supporters were getting set to forgive him. "Okay," they seemed to say, "you have a fling, it could happen to anybody, but now you're back, you've abased yourself, your wife is going to forgive you, we can go on." But wait. Now he has come out and gone off-script. He was in love with Maria Belen Chapur, and still is. They met in 2001, at the onset of our eight-year-long Republican convulsion over public morality and national meltdown in global politics. The Republican Party named for itself the "high ground" of moral probity, condemning liberalism as somehow not only fiscal irresponbsible but the ideology of license and promiscuity. Democrats have been caught in extramarital affairs, no question. But most of them did not sign on to any puritanical anti-sex purgation program. The Republicans, who stand foursquare in opposition to gay marriage, sex education, pre-marital sex, contraception, divorce, pornography, and just about anything that suggests an embrace of physical pleasure outside the narrow parameters of a biblical prescription for wedded bliss (all without obviously understanding just what biblical standards actually are) seem to be having more than their share of revelatory faux pas in this area. They are the party now of "Do What I Say Not What I Do"---a parenting stance that has long since lost any credibility. Polls and surveys and studies suggest that conservatives generally have a bigger problem with pornography than do liberals. Likewise, it seems conservative men of power screw around a lot more than do liberals in similar positions.

Continue ReadingGoing Off Script

What marriage is FOR (i.e., why it’s important to gays too)

Nathaniel Frank has identified the elephant in the room. People don't run off to get married to privately have access to government rights and benefits. Hell, where's the romance in that? And when they get married, they actually get smacked upside the head by the government with the federal tax marriage penalty. The government screws with marriage by taxing it. So what's the draw and social function of marriage? Why do people really want to be married? Marriage involves far more than just the two people getting married. Frank explains:

[M]arriage is not just a private bond, but a public identity, whose meaning is shaped by the assumptions and practices of all those who claim and recognize its status. Being married helps us keep our commitments to our spouses and our communities by creating a shared identity with very public expectations. It doesn't always work. But every day thousands of people choose to embrace this identity because of the support it helps afford them. This is why gays need access to the very same institution of marriage--not civil unions--that straights enjoy: so they can join not just each other, but the wider community of committed people whose marriage is recognized, understood and championed by people across the world. And this is why separate is inherently unequal.

Continue ReadingWhat marriage is FOR (i.e., why it’s important to gays too)

Catholic Answers: don’t even lie in the same bed . . .

Is it OK for unmarried adults to lie in the same bed, even if they don't have sex. Quick answer: NO. That's the advice I got here, at the Chastity Q&A. It's a sexual catechism filled with all kinds of advice, such as how far you can go without committing a sin. Is foreplay wrong? Here's advice I had never before considered:

Perhaps the easiest way to find out if our actions conform to authentic love is to imagine God sitting on a nearby sofa watching us. If his presence would cause immediate shame or the desire to stop dead in our tracks, we need to ask ourselves why.

How creepy! Would a married couple have sex if God was sitting on a nearby sofa watching? And, BTW, isn't God supposedly omniscient? Aren't good Christians supposedly to always assume that God is on a nearby sofa? Is it OK for homosexuals to raise children? No:

The impact of a mother in her family is unrepeatable, and the same can be said of the father. Two moms don't make a dad, and two dads do not equal a mom. This is the way nature has designed it.

Oh, and don't bother using condoms, because they cause greater numbers of unplanned pregnancies:

The fact is, increased condom use by teens is associated with increased out-of-wedlock birth rates.”

You'll also learn that merely looking at women in swimming suits is akin to pornography and that "porn trains us to have mental polygamy." All of this advice was provided by spin-off ("Chastity") site linked to a Catholic website ("Catholic Answers") that provided so much Catholic esoterica that it left me disoriented in 20 minutes. Truly amazing that so many people are willing to discuss, as one example of many, the difference (if any) between the "holy spirit" and the "holy ghost." Here's another interesting question: Should rock music be allowed at church? Absolutely not, because "If you were before Christ being crucified on Calvary, truly there witnessing it, would you start up a rock band and clap and dance?" The argument seems to be that as Jesus was bleeding to death on the cross, he would rather have someone nearby playing solemn music on an organ. If you want to be more than simply a good Catholic, "Catholicy Answers" is clearly the site for you.

Continue ReadingCatholic Answers: don’t even lie in the same bed . . .