Monday Morning Insights

Photo of Todd
    .

    NEW STUDY:  Most of Our Parents, even Grandparents Had Pre-Marital Sex

    Bookmark and Share

    Finer is a research director at the , 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 . 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 a 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 , 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.”

    Leslee Unruh, who runs a South Dakota-based organization promoting , contended that increasing numbers of young people were open to remaining chaste until marriage.

    SOURCE:  Fox News
    HT to:  Cafe Kudzu

    For Discussion: Do you believe these numbers?

    More than nine out of 10 Americans, men and women alike, have had , 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, . "Premarital sex is normal behavior for the vast majority of Americans, and has been for decades."

    Comments

    if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.

    1. Leonard on Tue, January 02, 2007

      no, I don’t think they are accurate.

    2. Daniel on Tue, January 02, 2007

      Actually, yeah, I do.  Obviously, whenever there’s discussion of sex, there’s room for a ‘fudge-factor’ since it’s hard to get people to report truthfully (especially if they’re not proud of how they’ve behaved—or not behaved).  That qualification aside, the numbers don’t surprise me that much.  All this study does for me is confirm the importance of talking about sex in church.  Something like Granger’s sex series, or Rob Bell’s new book (’Sex God’), seems perfectly appropriate to our sex-craved species, does it not?

    3. Camey on Tue, January 02, 2007

      Not 9 out of 10… but probably closer to 7 out of 10. Recently I was on the hunt for mentors for the girls/women in my group. Several names were brought to my attention and yet when asked in private if they would be interested in being a part of this ministry, one common reply kept coming…. “I would LOVE to be a part of such a ministry. BUT if I did, people would wonder why. I don’t want others to know about my past.” Three out of five have children older than the number of years they have been married to their spouses. I’m talking about women who are in their 50’s and 60’s.

    4. kent on Tue, January 02, 2007

      How do you get a hold of the study? I cannot say that I believe or disbelieve the numbers since I do not know how the study was conducted. But it seems high to me.

    5. Todd Rhoades on Tue, January 02, 2007

      Here’s the website for the study:


      http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg.htm

    6. Brian on Tue, January 02, 2007

      Here’s my issue:


      Those who are in favor of pre-marital sex will (and do, according to the article) use it as a basis for rejecting abstinence-only programs.


      The problem is that “just because everyone does it” doesn’t make it right.  Right?


      Second, the comments from the administration are horrible.  The fact of the matter is, the government rightly DOES regulate and stigmatize the behavior of adults.  That’s why RAPE and such are illegal, folks!


      I know what they’re trying to say, but it is totally illogical.


      Sigh…


      Brian

    7. Daniel on Tue, January 02, 2007

      I’m not in favor of premarital sex, but I think abstinence-only education is naive.  It’s in the governments best interest to provide a fully-fleshed out sex education.  The alternative would be to make premarital sex illegal (like rape!), but it’d probably hard for them to enforce that… (and talk about overcrowding the prisons! whew, most of the country would be guilty!)


      My two cents.

    8. kent on Tue, January 02, 2007

      Todd, thanks for the link.

    9. Brian on Tue, January 02, 2007

      Daniel,


      I see your point, but I have to disagree.


      A “fully fleshed-out” sex ed program basically says this:


      “We believe you should not have pre-marital sex, but since you’re nothing but a bag of uncontrollable hormones, let us show you how to use a condom and get the morning-after pill…”


      A bit of a generalization, yes, but that’s the bottom-line message.


      It’s also naive to think that more people in the Church would get involved in intentionally reaching the world for Christ, but I’m still optimistic that God can make it happen!


      BTW, I’m of the opinion that depravity will only get worse until the Second Coming, so such programs probably won’t have a huge, world-changing effect.  But if abstinence-only programs can save SOME from the heartache of the sin and its repercussions, isn’t it worth it?  I think it is.


      Brian

    10. Daniel on Tue, January 02, 2007

      Brian,


      Wouldn’t you say it’s dangerous to let a particular eschatology dictate your involvement with the world?  In fact, wouldn’t withdrawing from politics altogether logically hasten the ‘second coming’ in that case (assuming worldwide depravity is a prerequisite for that happening)? 


      I reject fatalistic eschatologies, and am therefore allowed to be much more hopeful about the world because of the Spirit’s work.


      Good sex-education is primarily about information.  Children and teenagers should be taught how their genitalia work.  Period.  We shouldn’t assume everyone in the public school system is going to try to avoid premarital sex.  That’s simplistic.  I would much rather non-Christian (and also Christian) teens use condoms (or the morning-after pill if necessary) if they choose to be sexually active.  Of course, I would much rather they not be sexually active, but people are autonomous agents, so they may do things that not everyone approves of.  No law can change that.


      My two cents.


      -Daniel-

    11. Brian La Croix on Tue, January 02, 2007

      Daniel,


      I’m not advocating any sort of eschatological position.  My point is that I don’t anticipate it getting any “better” before Jesus comes back, and therefore don’t anticipate that abstinence-only programs will have overall success in terms of world-wide scope.


      BTW, it seems to me that you are not promoting a “hopeful” attitude in terms of sex - can not the Spirit work in the arena of sexual activity in the world?


      I’m also not advocating laws to prevent premarital sex AMONG CONSENTING ADULTS.  But when school-age CHILDREN (and yes, I include those in the 17-18 year range - age has nothing to do with emotional maturity or ability to make life-altering decisions regarding sexuality, though I have seen some very mature children in these ages!) are taught that since they’re going to sleep around, “be safe,” it’s detrimental.  At the very least it is at least as “detrimental” as abstinence-only teaching.


      You say that it’s simplistic to assume that everyone in a public school setting is going to avoid having premarital sex.  I don’t remember in my post saying they would.  But why not offer an alternative to the mind-set that is being promoted by those who just feel that you might as well have sex, because you can’t control it.  Is it not simplistic to assume that abstinence-only CAN’T work?


      I’m saying that simply because premarital sex is the “norm” that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do all we can to promote abstinence.


      And I think you would have to agree that the there is no such thing as “values-free” education, particularly in terms of sex ed.  Public schools operate under the presumption I mentioned previously.  They operate under the “value” that premarital sex is the norm, so preparation for “safe-sex” is what we should aim for.


      That’s way more than biological information about genitalia - it’s promotion of a lifestyle where premarital sex is expected.  And I’m sorry, but your position on kids using condoms and the morning-after pill strikes me as a “default” position rather than a proactive one trying to protect our kiddos from the sin and its consequences, which I believe to be the Scriptural position to take.


      I think that either I’m miscommunicating or you are misunderstanding what I’m saying.  Probably the former!  Wouldn’t be the first time!


      Daniel, my guess is that you and I will never fully agree on this, so I’m going to allow you to have the last word between us on this issue.


      I pray that your 2007 will be blessed!

    12. Dennie on Tue, January 02, 2007

      Greetings!  I haven’t looked at the study yet, but I wonder at the effect the age of the respondents had on the findings.  One part says, “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.”  How many of the group was still unmarried at age 44?  5?  It was not so common for people to get past 20 in the “olden days” and not be married.  That’s all changed. 


      One thing that I’ve seen that the abstinence only educators do very well (much better than the “safe sex” crowd) is talk about Sexually Transmitted Diseases.  We’re not living in the days of a simple case of syphillis being cured by a couple doses of pennicillin anymore.  We’re talking every sexual encounter is putting your life at risk.  Kids need to know that.  Kuddos to every person who’s concerned enough about kids to teach abstinence.  I’m glad my kids are hearing it in school as it is mandated by the Indiana legislature.

    13. dcypl on Tue, January 02, 2007

      For sure it’s accurate, well as accurate as studies can be. Sexual sin has been around for as long as mankind itself. Even in societies where there are extreme penalties for sexual misconduct, sexual sin still occurs regularly.


      The average person doesn’t believe that sex is worth waiting for, that sounds remarkably like a conspiracy to ban all fun to a teenager!

    14. Daniel on Tue, January 02, 2007

      Brian,


      Thanks for the feedback.  I don’t really want the last word on this, since I’m hoping we can see eye to eye.  My hunch is that we have different ideas about what goes into various kinds of sex ed.


      I agree that there’s no such thing as values-free education.  However, I firmly believe that, in the public schools, it is possible to encourage abstinence while simultaneously providing appropriate information and strongly encouraging that those who do not choose abstinence have ‘protected’ sex.  My assumption about abstinence-only ed is that it deprives students of information that they would need, should they choose to be sexually active.  Perhaps this isn’t an assumption I should make.  But if it’s not, then why call it ‘abstinence only’ education?


      Of course, this is my opinion about legislation.  More important than the programs I vote and advocate for however, is our job as Christians to educate our children about sexuality.  The onus here is to ensure that they receive a biblical understanding of sexuality from the parents and mentors of their congregation.  This is far above and beyond what can be provided in the public schools, and far above and beyond what could ever be legislated.


      So in other words, I think when it comes down to the nitty-gritties of educating children in the Church, we whole-heartedly agree.


      As a side note though… your statement that you “don’t anticipate it getting any ‘better’ before Jesus comes back” is an eschatological position, is it not?   http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/wink.gif


      Cheers,


      -Daniel-

    15. Brian La Croix on Tue, January 02, 2007

      Okay, so I’m taking one more shot!


      I think we actually agree on more than we disagree on!


      The onus of real and godly sex ed rests on the parents.  And truth be told, this is one of the reasons we homeschool until high school (then Christian high school).


      I understand and even agree with your assumption about: it deprives students of information that they would need, should they choose to be sexually active.


      My only comment of concern is that there is an underlying presumption in the public school system that students MUST be sexually active because that’s just the way they are.  I think this is the main reason the NEA is so adamantly against any form of abstinence-only (or even abstinence INCLUDING) teaching in public schools.


      I have an eschatological OPINION (sort of - He’s coming back, that’s all I really know!), but I’m not an advocating any! http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif


      Brian

    16. Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

      Post a Comment

    17. (will not be published)

      Remember my personal information

      Notify me of follow-up comments?

    Sponsors