Premarital Sex - Lol

[Beowulf]

Premarital Sex Study (http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/12/19/premarital.sex.ap/index.html)
Lol.

Take that Christian Coalition, your promise rings don't mean dick.

NEW YORK (AP) -- More than nine out of 10 Americans, men and women alike, have had premarital sex, according to a new study. The high rates extend even to women born in the 1940s, challenging perceptions that people were more chaste in the past.

"This is reality-check research," said the study's author, Lawrence Finer. "Premarital sex is normal behavior for the vast majority of Americans, and has been for decades."

Finer is a research director at the Guttmacher Institute, a private New York-based think tank that studies sexual and reproductive issues and which disagrees with government-funded programs that rely primarily on abstinence-only teachings. The study, released Tuesday, appears in the new issue of Public Health Reports.

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.

Even among a subgroup of those who abstained from sex until at least age 20, four-fifths had had premarital sex by age 44, the study found.

Finer said the likelihood of Americans having sex before marriage has remained stable since the 1950s, though people now wait longer to get married and thus are sexually active as singles for extensive periods.

The study found women virtually as likely as men to engage in premarital sex, even those born decades ago. Among women born between 1950 and 1978, at least 91 percent had had premarital sex by age 30, he said, while among those born in the 1940s, 88 percent had done so by age 44.

"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.

"It would be more effective," Finer said, "to provide young people with the skills and information they need to be safe once they become sexually active -- which nearly everyone eventually will."

In related news... (http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/12/19/premarital.sex.ap/index.html)

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

Duh, I could of told you that myself without reading an article about it.

[mawande]

Under the category "If I knew then what I knew now," the chances are higher than 50% that I would still be a virgin at age 39.

[Roxie]

Yeah the Waxman Study covered all this stuff that proved how abstinence only education and it's aiding devices (like these "promise rings"/cards/etc) totally fail in almost every way.


Abstinence-Only Education Programs Teach False Science

Federally funded abstinence-only programs use curricula that contain "false, misleading or distorted information about reproductive health," according to a 2004 congressional study prepared for Representative Henry A. Waxman (D-CA).¹ Abstinence-only (or abstinence-only-until-marriage) classes teach teenagers only about abstinence and not about any other ways of protecting themselves against sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy.
Federal support for abstinence-only education programs has increased steadily under the Bush administration, rising from $80 million in fiscal year 2001 to $167 million in fiscal year 2005.² The Waxman study says that support for abstinence-only programs has risen despite the fact that rigorous academic studies have found them to be ineffective.
For example, while abstinence-only classes encourage young people to take a pledge that they will remain virgins until marriage, the Waxman study cites research that indicates "virginity pledgers" are no less likely to engage in premarital sex than their peers. Pledgers have rates of sexually transmitted diseases similar to other teens, and are less likely to use contraception in the event that they do engage in sexual intercourse.³
The Bush administration distorted science-based performance measures when testing whether abstinence-only programs were proving effective. The administration insisted that the Centers for Disease Control, the federal agency sponsoring abstinence education, measure success by the participation rates and attitudes of teens attending the programs,4 not the pregnancy rates of those teens, as had been the previous standard.5
In addition to being ineffective at deterring teen pregnancy and disease, the Waxman study reports that federally-funded abstinence-only programs teach children false scientific information. "Eleven of the thirteen curricula most commonly used by [federally funded abstinence-only programs] contain major errors and distortions of public health information," says the study.6
Some of the misinformation suggests poor research and editing by curricula authors. For example, one curriculum explains that "twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four chromosomes from the father join to create this new individual;" the actual number is twenty-three.7

Most of the errors, however, appear to stem from an ideological effort to scare young people about sex, contraception, and abortion. The treatment of condoms is one example. The U. S. Center for Disease Control has found that "latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of STD pathogens."8 Still, one abstinence curriculum sought to cast doubt on the trustworthiness of condoms: Think on a microscopic level. Sperm cells, STI organisms, and HIV cannot be seen with the naked eye—you need a microscope. Any imperfections in the contraceptive not visible to the eye, could allow sperm, STI, or HIV to pass through. . . . The size difference between a sperm cell and the HIV virus can be roughly related to the difference between the size of a football field and a football.9

The curriculum goes on to falsely state that "the actual ability of condoms to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS, even if the product is intact, is definitely not known." Another curriculum says "the typical failure rate for the male condom is 14 percent in preventing pregnancy."10 This statement is a distortion of the fact that given typical use, couples have a 15 percent chance of experiencing a condom failure over the course of a year; the failure rate falls to 2-3 percent with perfect condom use.11

Abstinence-only education programs also contain misinformation about abortions. "Sterility: Studies show that five to ten percent of women will never again be pregnant after having a legal abortion," one curriculum says.12 In actuality, as obstetricians are taught, an elective abortion does not alter fertility.13

Sadly, this pseudo science is fed to the young people most in need of correct, factual information regarding important life decisions. The Waxman study highlights the necessity for more government oversight to ensure that federally funded education programs teach scientific fact, not falsehood.

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/abstinence-only-sex-education.html

[Jetsetlemming]

"virginity pledgers" are no less likely to engage in premarital sex than their peers. Pledgers have rates of sexually transmitted diseases similar to other teens, and are less likely to use contraception in the event that they do engage in sexual intercourse.³

There's something very wrong with that claim. If the pledgers are JUST as likely to have sex, and MORE likely to forgo contraceptives, than the STD rates among them should be HIGHER.
Most of the errors, however, appear to stem from an ideological effort to scare young people about sex, contraception, and abortion. The treatment of condoms is one example. The U. S. Center for Disease Control has found that "latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of STD pathogens."8 Still, one abstinence curriculum sought to cast doubt on the trustworthiness of condoms:

Think on a microscopic level. Sperm cells, STI organisms, and HIV cannot be seen with the naked eye—you need a microscope. Any imperfections in the contraceptive not visible to the eye, could allow sperm, STI, or HIV to pass through. . . . The size difference between a sperm cell and the HIV virus can be roughly related to the difference between the size of a football field and a football.9

The curriculum goes on to falsely state that "the actual ability of condoms to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS, even if the product is intact, is definitely not known." Another curriculum says "the typical failure rate for the male condom is 14 percent in preventing pregnancy."10 This statement is a distortion of the fact that given typical use, couples have a 15 percent chance of experiencing a condom failure over the course of a year; the failure rate falls to 2-3 percent with perfect condom use.11
That's true! Teenagers are definitely the lowest common denominators when it comes to these things. The ones that will use condoms will leave them in their wallet for a year, or throw them down next to the radiator, or excitedly pull them on without thinking. They're a huge likelyhood of a teen not paying attention to proper condom care. That's not any bias. That's assuming that teenagers will be teenagers.
Telling the kids not to fuck is a good idea. It's a GREAT idea. You really expect a horny teenager to be careful and remember a contraseptive, and if they do, take good care of it and use it right?

[Roxie]

Telling the kids not to fuck is a good idea. It's a GREAT idea. You really expect a horny teenager to be careful and remember a contraseptive, and if they do, take good care of it and use it right?
I don't think anyone is arguing aganist abstinence...just aganist Abstinence ONLY education.

You can't teach someone their own priorities, but you can tell them the risk factors...you just have to hope (casue you can't lock them in a closet) that one of the two in the situation has their mind right.

[setrict]

I wonder how much divorce has to do with those numbers. The average marriage lasts under 10 years now. I guess sex is like pringles, once you pop, you can't stop. Judging by the wording of the articles, it appears that they are equating "before marriage" without "out of wedlock". (I looked, but could not find the text of the study, even on the authors site) I wonder what the percentages would be if the study only looked at premarital sex before the first marriage. I'm sure the numbers would still be high, but they would be more relevant to the whole teen abstinence debate.

[Roxie]

well, keep in mind the waxman study focuses on teenagers.

[Neon Pink Shoehorn]

Some of the misinformation suggests poor research and editing by curricula authors. For example, one curriculum explains that "twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four chromosomes from the father join to create this new individual;" the actual number is twenty-three.7

...most primates other than humans usually have 24 chromosome pairs :D

[Fred]

I think it is common behavior for people to select the data that supports their position rather than select the position that is supported by data. At least, that is a pattern I find in myself and I try to be conscious of the process. The Abstinence-Only people have an agenda that is not data driven, but rather driven by ideology. It does not surprise me that they fabricate or misuse data.

[Hatsumomo]

My biggest issue with the abstinence-only ideology is that they're trying to push that shit on other countries, namely African nations as a piss-poor method to work on the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The federal government has made it so that if you even say the word "condom," they'll yank your funding.

[mawande]

I wonder how much divorce has to do with those numbers. The average marriage lasts under 10 years now. I guess sex is like pringles, once you pop, you can't stop. Judging by the wording of the articles, it appears that they are equating "before marriage" without "out of wedlock". (I looked, but could not find the text of the study, even on the authors site) I wonder what the percentages would be if the study only looked at premarital sex before the first marriage. I'm sure the numbers would still be high, but they would be more relevant to the whole teen abstinence debate.

Er, no it isn't. You might be joking, but there is a reason for me to take you seriously. Way back when I was young (hahah) and still having sex, I shared a house with a bunch of other people while I was in university. One of those was a card-carrying Christian who was a tall, blond guy and proselytized a little. Well, he decided he was uncomfortable with my wearing a bathrobe in my travels from the shower to my room. At that time I did have a boyfriend I loved dearly and we did have sex.

Well, this guy popped up at my door in his bathrobe one day, but went away because I was on the phone. Much later he admits to me that he thought I'd have sex with him since his aunt told him once she started having sex she just always wanted to. I had a little talk with him about his values and how, if he thinks a woman has to be a virgin when he marries her, then for his conscience he'd better try to remain one himself. The conversation was longer and pretty much ended his attempts.

My mother snickered when I relayed this story and told me she thought the guy was hoping I'd offer to relieve him of his burden of virginity.
:meh:

[mawande]

My biggest issue with the abstinence-only ideology is that they're trying to push that shit on other countries, namely African nations as a piss-poor method to work on the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The federal government has made it so that if you even say the word "condom," they'll yank your funding.

Is it really true that men in these African nations were, for a while, and possibly now, of the belief that sex with a virgin would cure you of AIDS? Or was that something a newspaper just published in the interests of getting attention?

[Kwiz]

Is it really true that men in these African nations were, for a while, and possibly now, of the belief that sex with a virgin would cure you of AIDS? Or was that something a newspaper just published in the interests of getting attention?

From what I understand, that's a disturbingly common misconception throughout the third world - one that certainly isn't helping matters with the AIDS epidemic.

[Fred]

Mawande – I enjoyed your story. I have to say that I sympathize with the guy in your story. Even with the most high-minded men, youthfulness and a hardon will trump morality just about every time.

[PopCulturePooka]

There's something very wrong with that claim. If the pledgers are JUST as likely to have sex, and MORE likely to forgo contraceptives, than the STD rates among them should be HIGHER.

Because they may not be sleeping with the demographics that have high rates of STD's in the first place.

Plus, I've heard that many 'pledgers' engage in non vaginal penetration sexual acts. Catholic Butt Sluts have that name for a reason!

[Jetsetlemming]

Strangely enough, that's not a term that I've heard before.
Though, the catholic schoolgirl I dated a year ago certainly was... energetic.

[Hatsumomo]

Is it really true that men in these African nations were, for a while, and possibly now, of the belief that sex with a virgin would cure you of AIDS? Or was that something a newspaper just published in the interests of getting attention?

From what I understand, that's a disturbingly common misconception throughout the third world - one that certainly isn't helping matters with the AIDS epidemic.


Yep and yep. There have been (too many) instances of grown men raping babies because of that. Also, in either South Africa or Tanzania, there's another misconception along those lines that if you have sex with an albino, you'll be cured leading to the rape of many albinos in Africa.

[CrazyAce86]

I remember having a chat with my old roommate about this. She was card-carrying Super Christian, but she also questioned things as well. She asked me when I lost my virginity-- I was 15-- and asked whether or not I was ready. I told her I couldn't really say, not with hindsight. I told her that there's no instantaneous, lightbulb-clicking-on moment where you realize you're ready. It just happens.

She was frustrated because her body was telling her to, but her religion was forbidding her. She was all sorts of confused and I wished I could've helped her more, but that was something she had to square with herself.

We got started talking because of her boyfriend at the time. I'm not anti-religious (well...) but that kid was screwed up. He went and lost his virginity when he was in high school and freaked out. He went crying to his father, a preacher, and begged for forgiveness and just went crazy with it. He thought he was going to be banished to hell that exact moment. O_o Or so he told her, saying he regretted it and he would never do it again, blah, blah, blah.

Oddly enough, he always tried to boot me out of our room so he could fool around with her.

Yeeeaaah...

Personally, I don't get abstinence until marriage. For one, why, girls, do you want your first night of marriage to be pain-filled? And for another, I don't want some newbie that lasts two minutes. Talk about a let-down. You waited all that time for that? Now, two people with experience-- that's a wedding night.

[PopCulturePooka]

Personally, I don't get abstinence until marriage. For one, why, girls, do you want your first night of marriage to be pain-filled? And for another, I don't want some newbie that lasts two minutes. Talk about a let-down. You waited all that time for that? Now, two people with experience-- that's a wedding night.
This I agree with.

Can't imagine a honeymoon where the girls in pain, the guy blows after a second, if he can even get it up due to nerves and the rest of the sex is awkward, uncomfortable nonsense.

Or even worse, you find out on your wedding night taht you are sexually incompatible. Your partner doesnt really 'do it' for you and theres no sexual connection.

[Hatsumomo]

That's why you test drive the car before buying, folks.

[mawande]

What, it's not as if people can't read books, masturbate and all that stuff to build up endurance. "Oh, damn! I had to learn to be good in bed with my spouse! Imagine how much more I would have impressed him/her if I'd really, really know not to twist a nipple like it was a doorknob, or if we'd spent a heck of a time petting before even taking off our clothes."

How's about the joy of the young couple who'd been sexually together for a couple of years, decided to marry and start a family, took their AIDS tests and started having unprotected sex. Two weeks later the wife finds out her man's had Herpes because he gave it to her, but he'd never known because he had only mild breakouts and the odd rash went away so he shrugged it off.

This might have ruined their marriage, because of course she had horrible breakouts and her husband didn't quite understand.

[CrazyAce86]

I'm not saying people shouldn't wait 'til marriage. It's their business, I could care less if they're a virgin or not. Personally I don't understand it, but I don't understand a lot of things. If it works for 'em, fine. It's just not my thing.

I'm sure situations like that happen, but any smart person who's sexually active will get tested for stuff like that. And see, that goes back to the "abstinence only" education. Obviously, it's not really working. So sure, teach abstinence as the best way, but also give kids education about STDs and how to get tested and be healthy. That's what it's really about, right? Being healthy and safe?

[seiji]

Personally, I don't get abstinence until marriage. For one, why, girls, do you want your first night of marriage to be pain-filled? And for another, I don't want some newbie that lasts two minutes. Talk about a let-down. You waited all that time for that? Now, two people with experience-- that's a wedding night.
As Mawande pointed out, there are plenty of ways of getting...prepared...that many people don't count as "real sex".

Some of them even involve each other. :D



I still like a quote I read a long time ago, who-knows-where, about how waiting till the wedding night guarantees that even if the sex sucks, it's by default the best sex you've ever had!

[hidethedrone]

That's why you test drive the car before buying, folks.

Yep, and trade up for the new model as soon as it comes out.