In a previous post discussing the relationship between fecundity and promiscuity, the unsurprising fact that black men are the least likely to have a single lifelong partner was presented. The percentage of men, by race, who report having had exactly one female partner since age 18 is replicated here:
Whites -- 20.4%
Blacks -- 8.9%
Hispanics -- 18.0%
Asians -- 38.7%
The percentage of women, by race, who have had one male partner since age 18:
Whites -- 32.7%
Blacks -- 22.2%
Hispanics -- 33.4%
Asians -- 40.8%
Men consistently report having more sexual encounters than women do, as the higher percentage of self-reported monogamous women across the board illustrates. The relative racial ordering is essentially the same for women as it is for men, however, with blacks being the most promiscuous, Asians being the least so, and whites and Hispanics falling in between the two.
I am instinctively interested in ethnic differences among whites. Presumably, those of northwestern European ancestry come closest to the Victorian ideal--with the natural exception of the vulgar Irish, of course!*--while those tracing their heritage back to southern and eastern Europe are relatively promiscuous. The following table** shows the percentage of men, by ethnic group, who have had one partner since age 18. The female pattern again mirrors that of men, with proportionally higher levels of monogamy reported for each group:
The three immigrants to the US from Holland I know are all actively religious and socially conservative. Given the Netherlands' reputation as being the most secularized, socially liberal country in the world, these revelations surprised me on the three separate occasions I became aware of them. That's unscientific anecdote, of course. Is there any evidence that the Dutch who come stateside are fleeing from what they consider societal decay?
Turns out my preconceived notion of less committed Eastern Europeans is a little off the mark. As a group, they are indistinguishable from Germans. The superciliousness directed at southern Europeans and those base Hibernians is justified, however! The demographic change the US has experienced over the last half century has made concerns about ethnic differences among whites pale in comparison to the differences between whites and non-whites, but still today it is understandable why members of the US' founding stock resisted Irish and Italian immigration in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
As the most socially liberal group in the US, Jews live the libertine lifestyle they tend to have few qualms with. The orthodox, comprising a little less than one-tenth of the total population, are much more monogamous (43.3%) than those of conservative, reform, or non-religious backgrounds are.
"Americans" are the Appalachian whites of the McCain belt; the southerners who laid the groundwork for contemporary black pathologies in the purview of Thomas Sowell, as explained in Black Rednecks and White Liberals; the descendants of the Ultster Scots who came from the Borderlands to settle in the American Backcountry during the middle of the 18th century. And the variance in their behaviors relative to those of other whites shows up in contemporary ways just as it would be expected to.
GSS variables used: ETHNIC, NUMMEN, JEW, SEX(1)(2), NUMWOMEN, RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), HISPANIC(2-99)
* I am partially Irish and thus entitled to a little (uncharacteristic!) self-deprecation.
** Those who simply identify their ancestry as "American" make up the category of the same name. Those of Czechoslavakian, Hungarian, Polish, Romanian, Lithuanian, or Russian descent comprise the Eastern European category. Scandanavians are made up of those who trace their ancestry to Denmark, Sweden, Norway, or Finland. The Southern European category is comprised of those who originally came from Greece or the former Yugoslavia. English includes those of Welsh descent, and German includes those who came from Austria.