okie, wake-up time america...

[deepfred]

sorry, but this one takes the cake in the face of all these abstention oriented folks with a million dollar God mic and unfettered control of much of the public's airwaves...

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."

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."

Horn said he found the high percentages of premarital sex cited in the study to be plausible, and expressed hope that society would not look askance at the small minority that chooses to remain abstinent before marriage.

However, Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America, a conservative group which strongly supports abstinence-only education, said she was skeptical of the findings.

"Any time I see numbers that high, I'm a little suspicious," she said. "The numbers are too pat."

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

source (another million dollar mic) (http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/12/19/premarital.sex.ap/index.html)

Before I got married, my wife told me, "Don't talk about sex until we get married." We got married and she said, "Now you can talk about it all you want."

- Rodney Dangerfield

[Erudite]

sorry, but this one takes the cake in the face of all these abstention oriented folks with a million dollar God mic and unfettered control of much of the public's airwaves...

I think "unfettered control" is overstating your case by...well, a lot. ;)

[Lycos]

I'm for anything that proves that it works to help keep teen pregnancy and high risk sex down. But it sounds like this study covers more than just teens. I do have to say that I've never felt that abstinence was a great solution, but if it works for some then great!

[Raveneye]

So did all these people interviewed for this study reside in New York? If so, you can throw out those results. :smile:

Seriously though, I'm not sure how much of today's issues are really about pre-marital sex as much as they are about the ages at which it's happening. From the late '60's through the 80's there was a growing trend in this country among younger people to wait a longer period of time before getting married. This was especially true among women, who spent those 20+ years earning higher educations, entering the workforce and generally achieving many life goals of which marriage was only one, and one that could be put off awhile. You can't expect people to not engage in sex until they are 30 just because they want to establish a career or travel the globe before they settle down.

In the last decade or so, there seems to be a trend backwards, towards marrying younger again. I know the number of people I personally know who got married before finishing college or even right out of high school seems to be at an all time high, and these are professional people whom I've worked with at various places, not "troubled teens" or anything. It's like, for women, 25 is the new 30, everyone rushing to get married and start having babies only a couple of years out of college. I'm not sure why this is, could be that workplaces are a lot more accomodating to working moms now, enabling women to make the "have children" choice without jepardizing the "career" choice, or it could be that younger people are simply maturing faster. The more you're exposed to mature themes as a teen/young adult, the faster you'll move "forward" to the next logical steps of marriage and children, and probably divorce in turn after that.

A study on THAT sort of thing would be a lot more interesting than one that proves that "most people have had pre-marital sex by age 44". Duh.

[Shiz]

A study of pre-marital sex trends is not a study in teenage pregnancy trends. I am not convinced the US gov't should be spending money on sex education of any kind, but the money that is being spent is targeting pre-marital pregnancy via abstinence. It is taking the study one step too far to assert that since everyone has pre-marital sex, then federally-funded abstinence programs are futile. It is flawed to take the results of a specific study and make conclusions about policies not studied.

[attriel]

A study of pre-marital sex trends is not a study in teenage pregnancy trends. I am not convinced the US gov't should be spending money on sex education of any kind, but the money that is being spent is targeting pre-marital pregnancy via abstinence. It is taking the study one step too far to assert that since everyone has pre-marital sex, then federally-funded abstinence programs are futile. It is flawed to take the results of a specific study and make conclusions about policies not studied.

uh, if abstinence is being ignored, then spending money to tell people about it so they can ignore it at a higher payrate seems silly :o

that, and let's look at the gov'ts track record with telling people not to do things:

drinking is bad, we will not have alchohol. and bootleggers'll make a FORTUNE
drugs are bad, we will not have drugs. and colombian drug lords'll make a FORTUNE
sex is bad without marriage. we will not have premarital sex. and the abstinence people will make a FORTUNE

:o but then, i'm a cynic. and i'm married. and i'm going to have my kid snipped just like my dog, b/c if it's good for one it's good for both right? ;)

(ok, so that one might get me in more trouble than putting the kid in the yard on a leash to play with the dog, eh?)

[Drax]

Sounds like invisible fence is your answer, att.

[Lycos]

Sounds like invisible fence is your answer, att.

I've tried the invisible fence. It doesn't work so well. They just stand there and keep getting shocked to spite me! :lowlol:

[Asharad]

It's not pre-marital sex if you don't plan on marrying the person.

[Caranthir]

I'm with Shiz on the whole sex education in school issue (I think it's yet another example of government usurpation of parental authority), but since it's probably here to stay, what's wrong with trying to teach kids and young adults about abstinence?

They talk about how everyone is doing it, but that doesn't make it a good thing. I've known a lot of people that have made a mess out of what were pretty promising futures by messing around and winding up with a kid they didn't plan on having with someone they really didn't want to spend the rest of their lives with. I'm more thankful than you could ever possibly know for my niece, but she's the product of a mistake by two people who really weren't meant to be together. Then there's what's been happening to the African-American community over the last couple of decades.

I think the best way to do it (if you don't leave it to parents as it should be), is to teach that "abstinence is the best thing to do, but if you don't, then use these safety precautions."

[Kiir]

I think the best way to do it (if you don't leave it to parents as it should be), is to teach that "abstinence is the best thing to do, but if you don't, then use these safety precautions."



Yes it is, however, that isn't what schools teach. They teach abstinence is the only thing to do and don't tell people what the safety precautions are. It isn't that people aren't agreeing that abstinence is best, it is more that people are saying, realistically most people will not be abstinent so it is probably a good idea to let people know what type of birth control and std control options there are.

[attriel]

Then there's what's been happening to the African-American community over the last couple of decades.


eh?


I think the best way to do it (if you don't leave it to parents as it should be), is to teach that "abstinence is the best thing to do, but if you don't, then use these safety precautions."

yeah, but a lot of the people in charge keep not wanting to do the "but ..." part b/c "if we teach them about precautions, it's an implicit message that it's OK" ... kinda like "if you put your daughter on birth control, you might as well hang a sign on her waist that says 'open for business' b/c now she's going to be a complete slut b/c it's OK"

sometimes a cucumber is just a banana :o

[Caranthir]

Yes it is, however, that isn't what schools teach. They teach abstinence is the only thing to do and don't tell people what the safety precautions are. It isn't that people aren't agreeing that abstinence is best, it is more that people are saying, realistically most people will not be abstinent so it is probably a good idea to let people know what type of birth control and std control options there are.

Odd, I've seen very few instances of "abstinence is the only way" classes out there. Most of what I've seen are of the "you're gonna do it, so here, let me demonstrate" variety. Our junior high school health class never even mentioned abstinence.

Anyway, like I said, I think it's something that parents should be teaching their kids, not teachers. Especially when parents aren't even allowed to request that they be allowed to teach their children the way they want to anymore.

[Lycos]

I'm with Shiz on the whole sex education in school issue (I think it's yet another example of government usurpation of parental authority), but since it's probably here to stay, what's wrong with trying to teach kids and young adults about abstinence?

The schools are left teaching the kids in some situations because the parents don't. So the question is, do you have the most at risk kids running around without any information, and getting pregnant as a teen, dropping out of school, and going on welfare, or do you try and do something to educate everyone? I vote for educating everyone. More knowledge can't hurt.

Remember guys, not everyone was raised in a household where the parents gave a crap about their kids.

[Greebo]

Yes it is, however, that isn't what schools teach. They teach abstinence is the only thing to do and don't tell people what the safety precautions are. It isn't that people aren't agreeing that abstinence is best, it is more that people are saying, realistically most people will not be abstinent so it is probably a good idea to let people know what type of birth control and std control options there are.
I assume here you mean Catholic or Christian schools only teach abstinence, right? Cause where I grew up, we learned about birth control...

[Kiir]

Odd, I've seen very few instances of "abstinence is the only way" classes out there. Most of what I've seen are of the "you're gonna do it, so here, let me demonstrate" variety. Our junior high school health class never even mentioned abstinence.

Anyway, like I said, I think it's something that parents should be teaching their kids, not teachers. Especially when parents aren't even allowed to request that they be allowed to teach their children the way they want to anymore.


The current government policies only allow for the abstinence is the only way message if you get federal funding. So there are a lot of health classes these days that only teach abstinence and nothing else, since that is where the funding is coming from.

And every school that I know of let's parents decide if they want their child to be included in sex education classes or allowed to opt out. Now the opt out options may not be useful and they may shame the parent for not letting their kids participate (that piece I don't know), they may also be opt out rather then opt in policies so the parents may have to know enough to be able to opt their child out, but everywhere I've investigated does allow the parents to decide if their child should be getting sex ed or not.

[GravenStone]

I assume here you mean Catholic or Christian schools only teach abstinence, right? Cause where I grew up, we learned about birth control...

This is the fallacy of the argument. We base opinions on what we experienced growing up. As Kiir pointed out, current regs say if you get Federal funds, you teach Abstinence Only. period. This is where the problem comes because it's bloody wishful thinking to believe the majority of kids aren't going to experiment if the opportunity presents itself. Honestly, abstinence might be the ideal, but it really only tends to work when there is strong parental input and support. Asking the schools to play this role, while turning a blind eye to the realities of societal and peer pressure (which the parental support helps offset) is simply asking for abject and widespread failure.

[Caranthir]

The current government policies only allow for the abstinence is the only way message if you get federal funding. So there are a lot of health classes these days that only teach abstinence and nothing else, since that is where the funding is coming from.

And every school that I know of let's parents decide if they want their child to be included in sex education classes or allowed to opt out. Now the opt out options may not be useful and they may shame the parent for not letting their kids participate (that piece I don't know), they may also be opt out rather then opt in policies so the parents may have to know enough to be able to opt their child out, but everywhere I've investigated does allow the parents to decide if their child should be getting sex ed or not.

I've seen multiple articles talking about court cases where parents were told to "go to hell" (either euphemistically or in a case or two in those exact words) when they indicated to school officials that they'd prefer that their kids not learn how to orally apply a condom to a banana or about the joys of anal sex. The fact is there are a lot of people out there who think it's the government's responsibility to raise our kids.

Yes, there are a lot of crappy parents out there. But maybe if they were better taught about the consequences of promiscuous sex they wouldn't be crappy parents.

Anyway, I agree that abstinence only is a stupid idea, but I think it should definitely have greater emphasis.

[Caranthir]

This is the fallacy of the argument. We base opinions on what we experienced growing up. As Kiir pointed out, current regs say if you get Federal funds, you teach Abstinence Only. period. This is where the problem comes because it's bloody wishful thinking to believe the majority of kids aren't going to experiment if the opportunity presents itself. Honestly, abstinence might be the ideal, but it really only tends to work when there is strong parental input and support. Asking the schools to play this role, while turning a blind eye to the realities of societal and peer pressure (which the parental support helps offset) is simply asking for abject and widespread failure.

Agreed. My dad's "you get a girl pregnant, I'll kill you" approach worked pretty well. :mrgreen:

[Raveneye]

I believe schools should teach birth control, safe sex and disease prevention as part of Health class. Yes, it does imply that these things happen, but it doesn't imply them any more strongly than MTV, movies magazines and other culteral influences do for kids at that age. In fact, I see sex education as a buffer zone of sorts, a way to impart the serious consequences of your actions that popular media rarely touches on. Show kids how to prevent unwanted pregnancy, AIDS and other STDs, and do it with a strong message that all these things WILL happen to you if you are not prepared and educated. Get the message through and the majority will listen and understand. Sure, some kids will see it as a license to have sex, but these are the same kids that would have been doing that anyway, only now maybe they're better informed so that they don't end up dying because of it.

It is still the parent's responsibility to lay all this out for the child. Sex education in schools is only meant to be a tool to help responsible parents with this. Unfortunately, for some kids sex education in school may be the only input they get, because their parents either don't care or won't discuss it with them. For those kids, the education they get at school could be the only thing standing between them and a life ruined by a teenage pregnancy or an STD.

[DirkDarkBlade]

By 44 huh? I guess that gives me just over a year to catch up.

[Serani]

By 44 huh? I guess that gives me just over a year to catch up.
There goes another Purity point...

I didn't learn about BC or ways to prevent STDs when I was in school. The ONLY thing we heard was "don't." Now, I lived in the Bible Belt (HALLELUJAH!), so I'm sure that affected things, but I would have been surprised if any of the schools in the South taught about BC or STDs.

I would also like to point out that a good number of my friends - kids who were raised in moneyed households or parents who were lawyers, doctors and the like who didn't hear a PEEP from their parents about sex. They flat wouldn't talk to them about it, so the kids were left to their own devices. Three of my 8 female friends were married, a mother and divorced within 5 years of graduating.

I've already had the sex discussions with Jabby (who is, atm, thankfully, still not interested). But I've made perfectly clear two things: she SHOULD wait, but if she's not going to, she needs to come to ME so I can get her in to the doctor and get her protected.

That said, as an adult, I've begun to feel very different about pre-marital sex than I used to. After being married three times and divorced twice, I often wonder if I shouldn't have gotten to know my exes a lot more before tying the knot, including what they were like in bed. :lowrazz: But seriously, I strongly feel that if you're going to preach abstinence, then in this day and age, you're going to have to expect a high divorce rate. Because young folks WILL get married, if for no other reason, than to have sex. If you're going to tell them not to get married so young, they'll have pre-marital sex. You simply can't have it both ways. The days of staying married "no matter what" are long gone.

[Kiir]

I didn't learn about BC or ways to prevent STDs when I was in school. The ONLY thing we heard was "don't." Now, I lived in the Bible Belt (HALLELUJAH!), so I'm sure that affected things, but I would have been surprised if any of the schools in the South taught about BC or STDs.


My high school health class in Atlanta did, no clue if they still do, but they actually went over various options and such. Which was kind of a surprise. To be fair I didn't pay that much attention because my parents had educated me about STDs and sex long before that point in time. They did teach it in the South though I'm not sure how South suburban Atlanta can really be considered.

[Sylvene]

I assume here you mean Catholic or Christian schools only teach abstinence, right? Cause where I grew up, we learned about birth control...

Talk about Flashbacks... Father O'Neil flirting with Sister Bridgette in overt, exagerrated manner, interspersed with jokes about why you shouldn't neck underneath a coconut tree... that was a lesson about relationships and role-play about situations a good girl could find herself in - at the Senior girls retreat.

Talks about Periods were provided at 12, and shortly after, STDs - and of course all of us imagined we had caught one somehow for weeks after.

BC & STD talks continued throughout my secondary school days with Abstinence encouraged as the only sure way to prevent STDs and pregnancies. Man... did they scare us with pictures and movies. Especially since we then went home and asked Mom if A. The first time hurt and B. If giving birth hurt... and exchanged horror stories.

Just scare the beejeebus out of them. *grins*

[Asharad]

I remember in 5th grade sex ed the guys being obessed with the idea that women couldn't get pregnant via anal sex. As if they had found some magical workaround.

[Greebo]

I remember in 5th grade sex ed the guys being obessed with the idea that women couldn't get pregnant via anal sex. As if they had found some magical workaround.
So what are you saying, women CAN get pregnant via anal sex?

[Erudite]

I remember in 5th grade sex ed the guys being obessed with the idea that women couldn't get pregnant via anal sex. As if they had found some magical workaround.

Heh. A gal I went to college with teaches middle school in one of Detroit's weathier suburbs. A few years ago she was telling us this was a real problem in her school. All the little boys were telling all the little girls what a great deal this was and all the girls were going right along with it - and the inexperience (i.e., lack of any sort of lubrication) was causing some serious health complications. :*

[Raveneye]

Heh. A gal I went to college with teaches middle school in one of Detroit's weathier suburbs. A few years ago she was telling us this was a real problem in her school. All the little boys were telling all the little girls what a great deal this was and all the girls were going right along with it - and the inexperience (i.e., lack of any sort of lubrication) was causing some serious health complications. :*


:! :eek!: :!
So middle school is apparently nothing but a 6 hour porno these days? :evileye: