http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/12/19/premarital.sex.ap/index.html

Quote :

"The study, examining how sexual behavior before marriage has changed over time, was based on interviews conducted with more than 38,000 people -- about 33,000 of them women -- in 1982, 1988, 1995 and 2002 for the federal National Survey of Family Growth. According to Finer's analysis, 99 percent of the respondents had had sex by age 44, and 95 percent had done so before marriage."

Which leads us to the question and the problem of :

Quote :

"The data clearly show that the majority of older teens and adults have already had sex before marriage, which calls into question the federal government's funding of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs for 12- to 29-year-olds," Finer said. Under the Bush administration, such programs have received hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding."

Required moronic rebuttal please:

Quote :

"Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, defended the abstinence-only approach for teenagers. "One of its values is to help young people delay the onset of sexual activity," he said. "The longer one delays, the fewer lifetime sex partners they have, and the less the risk of contracting sexually transmitted disease." He insisted there was no federal mission against premarital sex among adults. "Absolutely not," Horn said. "The Bush administration does not believe the government should be regulating or stigmatizing the behavior of adults.""

And the debate is over. We need a new sexual education policy that doesnt pretend that we're living in some sort of odd non-sexual world.

12/20/2006 12:28:01 PM

someone wasted money on this study

i could have told you that > 90% of people have had pre-marital sex

you know why...because society throws it in the faces of pre-teens and teens

this is all common sense

[Edited on December 20, 2006 at 12:32 PM. Reason :  ]

12/20/2006 12:31:22 PM

Hahaha that means there's a lot of lying-ass Christians.

Quote :

"you know why...because society throws it in the faces of pre-teens and teens"

Or: because we're human beings, and human beings like to fuck. None of this is mysterious.

[Edited on December 20, 2006 at 12:33 PM. Reason : .]

12/20/2006 12:31:52 PM

Quote :

"Or: because we're human beings, and human beings like to fuck. None of this is mysterious."

12/20/2006 12:37:19 PM

REFUSE personal responsibility for your actions
BLAME anyone or anything--blanketed as "society"--instead

12/20/2006 12:38:11 PM

you cant tell me that if there was complete isolation from outside influences that it would not be easier to "control" aspects of behavior

12/20/2006 12:47:07 PM

Psychologists sure seem to think so.

12/20/2006 12:48:21 PM

Aficionado:

If you read the article, it pretty much says "nothing has changed since 1940, either".

Quote :

"The high rates extend even to women born in the 1940s, challenging perceptions that people were more chaste in the past."

12/20/2006 12:49:39 PM

well then i retract

i didnt read the entire atricle

12/20/2006 12:52:01 PM

Uhhh who wants to control humans into NOT having sex except religious folks, or prudes with religious residue clogging up their reason?

We're humans. We're driven to mate. We're animals in this respect. Fucking is NOT wrong.

12/20/2006 12:52:18 PM

McD, I totally agree with you. It isn't wrong, unless you have a religious based morality telling you, individually, that it is.

However, there is something to be said for making sure people do it safely.

12/20/2006 1:00:27 PM

which is why the bush admin. needs to get off this abstinence only train and promote education on contraception and safe sex methodology.

12/20/2006 1:05:17 PM

Indeed, although I don't think the 5th grade is really the time. They taught us how to use condoms well before most of the kids had pubes.

12/20/2006 1:20:30 PM

some kids starting having sex in 6th grade where i grew up.

...and everyone else certainly knew what it was.

[Edited on December 20, 2006 at 1:31 PM. Reason : df]

12/20/2006 1:30:48 PM

No doubt some kids began that early where I grew up too, and while most/all of us were aware of what sex was, we weren't 99% of us weren't taking the opportunity. Because of that, none of us really paid any attention to what we were being told. Perhaps making the information available in the 5th, but then more comprehensively in the 7th would be a better plan.

12/20/2006 1:43:06 PM

thinking back, i dont think we were ever told how to use condoms. we had sex ed, but they never talked about contraception.

12/20/2006 1:45:20 PM

thought about making this thread in chit chat yesterday

i didnt because it wasnt ground breaking news

12/20/2006 1:48:19 PM

my teacher removed the page on 'sexual intercourse' from my 5th grade sex ed 'workbook'. so we learned everything about the anatomy of sexual organs, but nothing about sex. gg penny road

12/20/2006 2:03:05 PM

We learned how to use condoms, and then one guy said he "double bags it on the only chicks" and the lady had to explain to the 5th grader that 2 condoms creates friction and increases chance of breakage and leakage.

12/20/2006 2:18:43 PM

Condoms should be handed out free in highschools definately. I'm not sure how they could best handle middleschoolers though. There's a lot more sex in middle school than most people realize. While I definately think kids should be told about contraceptives, STD's, etc. as young as 5th grade I don't think that a basket of free condoms sitting outside the school nurse's office would go over very well.

Middle schoolers and rising 5th graders are where you see some of the biggest controversy. Most parents don't want kids that young having sex and think if we make contraceptives availible that would send a message that it's alright for them to have sex. The problem is that if they're already having sex then you're not going to get them to stop with scare tactics or finger wagging.

Imagine you're a middleschool counselor or nurse and a student tells you they're having unsafe sex with multiple partners. You could tell their parents of course, but that would be the last time a student would ever confide in you and he/she will still probably keep having sex. You could advise them on condom use or even give them condoms. If their parents found out about that though you'd probably be without a job.

What do you think a counselor should do in a situation like that? I'm sure most people would say that it's something for the parents to handle and the school shouldn't be parenting. I think counselors or school nurses should be able to provide condoms to people even in middle school. I know it would piss off a lot of parents, but if your kids are already having sex behind your back then at least it would be safer sex.

12/20/2006 4:54:57 PM

Middle schoolers are easy.

Hand them a Tolkien book and they'll be doomed to nerddom till at least mid high school.

12/20/2006 5:06:09 PM

This all gets back to backward attitudes about sex. Our bodies want sex, starting in middle school. Middle schoolers having sex doesn't work in our society. But we have a better chance at changing society than changing sexual behavior.

12/20/2006 5:08:11 PM

Quote :

"Aficionado: you know why...because society throws it in the faces of pre-teens and teens this is all common sense"

It exists as its own cause? ::head cock::

Please explain your logic. I'd argue that our society doesn't so much throw it in the faces of pre-teens and teens as it reflects what entertains masses of people. You're blaming the suppliers of the market whereas I'm pointing out the demand that drives that supply, which I'd argue is as natural and widespread here as anywhere else in the world.

Quote :

"Patman: But we have a better chance at changing society than changing sexual behavior."

On some level, I agree. Although, to be honest with you, there are ways to change sexual behavior. I've read of behavior modification techniques involving psychedelic drugs (particularly LSD) that are capable of reversing or nullifying one's sexual predilections. It's certainly possible, but sounds far too Brave New World-ish when extrapolated to individual cases of parents sexually nullifying their children until a certain age.

The point is that sex is an instinct, regardless of however flustered that makes the old ladies at the K&W on Sunday afternoon. It just so happens that the instinct is turned on with the pituitary glands, which are activating at earlier and earlier ages in boys and girls than they used to. Moreso for girls. The question is really, how exactly is society to react to this incontrovertible fact?

We seem to be stuck in a loop of:

1) Ignoring the problem.
2) Hiding the problem.
3) Bitching about the problem.
5) Blame those who enjoy sex "too much."
6) Repeat Step 1.

What's the solution? Reward responsibility? The free market already does this to some extent. Prop up those unfortunate people who were denied the lessons of contraception for whatever ignorant reasons? I'm curious as to what the Soap Box would say about this particular problem.

[Edited on December 20, 2006 at 7:45 PM. Reason : ...]

12/20/2006 7:31:36 PM

^ i already said i was wrong ok

[Edited on December 20, 2006 at 7:47 PM. Reason : .]

12/20/2006 7:43:25 PM

This doesn't bode well for my chances of finding a virgin to marry. At least not one that is even mildly attractive.

12/20/2006 8:09:37 PM

5% of 300 million is still 15 million.

12/20/2006 9:16:41 PM

Quote :

""One of its values is to help young people delay the onset of sexual activity," he said. "The longer one delays, the fewer lifetime sex partners they have, and the less the risk of contracting sexually transmitted disease.""

And what of the natural human urge to procreate? No one ever seems to bother discussing the mental and physiological benefits of sex. The human body is designed to have it, and to enjoy it, so lets not be naive. Sex is happening regardless of what the school boards decide to tell students. It's best to accept that as a given before deciding on future policy....

12/21/2006 12:25:53 AM

lifespans have grown, so its no big deal to wait until your late teens/ early twenties to bwn for the first time

back when the avg. lifespan was late 40s, then you had to be bwnin as soon as u sprouted hairs

[Edited on December 21, 2006 at 12:30 AM. Reason : s]

12/21/2006 12:30:16 AM

new sex ed class:

dead kids, abstinence is great, and we highly reccommend it,
HOWEVER
if you do decide to get down, here's how to not get knocked up and not catch crotch-rot

[Edited on December 21, 2006 at 2:08 AM. Reason : w]

12/21/2006 2:07:51 AM

Am I the only one who just doesn't buy this statistic?

I'd love to see more on the methodology, etc, for how they came up with it.

If you sent out an anonymous survey asking "Is murder a moral wrong?" - it would barely be higher than 95%.

Simply put, my skepticism just comes from the fact that 95% is an obscenely high number for like-minded behavior across an incredibly diverse and large population.

No way.

I'll buy 80-85, maybe, but not 95.

12/21/2006 5:43:18 AM

Quote :

"Hahaha that means there's a lot of lying-ass Christians."

You'd think they would have lied for the survey as well.

[Edited on December 21, 2006 at 7:28 AM. Reason : -]

12/21/2006 7:28:18 AM

Quote :

"It just so happens that the instinct is turned on with the pituitary glands, which are activating at earlier and earlier ages in boys and girls than they used to."

Gamecat, what evidence have you for earlier pituitary activation?

If it is true: What do you think has caused that?

12/21/2006 7:43:12 AM

the other 5% tried and failed

12/21/2006 8:58:05 AM

^^ Some shit I read a while back. It was in print and I don't recall what magazine it was. Basically, it said that women were reaching sexual maturity earlier and earlier (~10 yrs old in some cases now as opposed to early teens many years ago).

As for the cause, I haven't the faintest clue. There's plenty of room to speculate about additives in our food, but it'd just be base speculation.

12/21/2006 10:48:03 AM

Quote :

"Am I the only one who just doesn't buy this statistic?"

conducting surveys on a sample size this small and then alluding it to be fact as a sweeping generalization is destined to be a great study.


With that few points, you could swing this anyway you'd like.

12/21/2006 10:59:04 AM

^^I've read teh same thing so i can back him up/

12/21/2006 12:23:06 PM

why does this really matter?



wait I actually read the thread

[Edited on December 21, 2006 at 12:26 PM. Reason : 11111]

12/21/2006 12:26:04 PM

Quote :

"conducting surveys on a sample size this small and then alluding it to be fact as a sweeping generalization is destined to be a great study. With that few points, you could swing this anyway you'd like."

So this --

Quote :

"based on interviews conducted with more than 38,000 people"

Quote :

"in 1982, 1988, 1995 and 2002 for the federal National Survey of Family Growth."

-- is small?

You do know that when political scientists conduct research meaningful polling data they magic number for the whole country is 1,138 people?

And most of the time guess rightfully the Presidents based on that method.


Did you guys even read the first paragraph? I mean I know short attention spans and all, but seriously.

12/21/2006 2:11:46 PM

Don't lump me in with the idiot who thought the sample size wasn't large enough. No question that it is.

I'm saying that I highly suspect there's some other part of the methodology that is off.

12/21/2006 3:00:05 PM

^ I still can't believe that you're a guy and you have TULIPlovr as a screen name.

12/21/2006 3:00:58 PM

The sample size is plenty large, the question I guess you could ask is how random it is.

"We administered this question to patrons of strip clubs"
or
"People buying condoms at the 7/11"

lol, those might be suspect.

12/21/2006 3:07:43 PM

Quote :

"Fucking is NOT wrong."

That would make a great bumper sticker.

So assuming this study is true, that's 5% chaste til marriage. How much of the country are self-describing Christian?

12/21/2006 3:49:19 PM

Using this study as a tool to bash religious people is really fucking stupid. Anyways....

I don't see how 95% is a surprising number. We are talking about sex here.

12/21/2006 3:56:02 PM

^ I'm not using it to bash religious people. Just making a point about Christians (of which I am one).

Christians in general would benefit about an honest discussion about premarital sex. But its shied away from and pastors instead focus on current-day issues that do not affect their audiences by and large cause they don't want to offend them and turn off the collection plate money supply.

FWIW, I can never remember a discussion in church or Sunday school about it.

According to the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey, 77% of Americans are Christian, 15% are atheist, and 8% other.

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/key_findings.htm

[Edited on December 21, 2006 at 4:05 PM. Reason : /]

12/21/2006 4:01:51 PM

sorry Tulip, i think its a must however question their methodology. Hopefully we'll get some insight into that if changes are being made based on this study. You always haev to question.

in the meantime I think these are probably facts, and we should begin to take steps to address this as fact in a national education system.

12/21/2006 4:35:56 PM

remember the source of the study, though.....the group is heavily engaged in fighting against abstinence-only programs, so at least there is an incentive for them to have a skewed number.

And another critical question:

they say that back in the 50's-70's, the rates for premarital sex were nearly as high as they are now.

So it begs asking: Where were all the babies? Effective contraception was not nearly as widespread, so if sex outside of marriage was nearly as common then as it is now, should it not show up in the babies-out-of-wedlock rate?

Similar sexual activity rate outside of marriage + much much less contraception should = more out-of-wedlock babies then than now, or at least comparable rates.



http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr48/nvs48_16.pdf - look at the graph on the first page. Out of wedlock births have gone from 12% of total births in 1950, to nearly 40% today. With less contraception, this at least casts a huge doubt over their figure for premarital sexual activity in the 50's.

[Edited on December 21, 2006 at 4:59 PM. Reason : a]

12/21/2006 4:45:04 PM

Quote :

"remember the source of the study, though.....the group is heavily engaged in fighting against abstinence-only programs, so at least there is an incentive for them to have a skewed number. And another critical question: they say that back in the 50's-70's, the rates for premarital sex were nearly as high as they are now. So it begs asking: Where were all the babies? Effective contraception was not nearly as widespread, so if sex outside of marriage was nearly as common then as it is now, should it not show up in the babies-out-of-wedlock rate? Similar sexual activity rate outside of marriage + much much less contraception should = more out-of-wedlock babies then than now, or at least comparable rates."

How can you skew the question "Did you have sex before you got married?" You either did or you didn't.

As far as the babies, are you stating that the Woodstock Generation of the '60s was not a big increase in sex than the '50s? Yet the '50s was the baby boomers. Plus, traditionally if you got a girl pregnant you usually got married five months before the baby was born. That would probably keep a baby from being born out of wedlock and would lower that statistic. Getting married because of a baby does not occur as often today.

[Edited on December 21, 2006 at 5:22 PM. Reason : /]

12/21/2006 5:19:06 PM

You can't skew the question much, but you can certainly skew the sample. A huge, non-random sample is still a bad sample.

Quote :

"Plus, traditionally if you got a girl pregnant you usually got married five months before the baby was born. That would probably keep a baby from being born out of wedlock and would lower that statistic"

Are you suggesting at least 25% of the population did that?

12/21/2006 6:53:59 PM

In order to assure survivability, it was common practice to get a woman pregnant before you marry her in order to make sure she was fertile. Look at the Mayflower records for evidence of this.

12/21/2006 6:56:50 PM

Quote :

"Are you suggesting at least 25% of the population did that?"

I am suggesting that because of the social stigma that was attached to both the parents and the child later on in his or her life, babies conceived out of wedlock were usually born in wedlock. I have no statistics to back me up on this, just people talking that are a good bit older than me.

[Edited on December 21, 2006 at 8:15 PM. Reason : /]

12/21/2006 8:15:24 PM