95% of Americans have had pre-marital sex

source

Originally Posted by CNN.com

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."

I realize this abstinence-only thing is big right now, especially with the funding from the government and all. But as the article sites, even the older ladies in our American society got it on before getting a shiny ring on their hand back in the "old days."

So much for that idea. Seems like it's fairly normal to get laid before getting married.

Do you think it's a waste of money to have a government-funded program to have kids refraining from sex?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

While I see nothing wrong with the gov't promoting abstinance, the problem is they're focusing SOLELY on it. They should be teaching about proper choices, protection, birth control, etc for when they do become adults.

You're not gonna stop kids from doing it, but shoving once answer down their throats isn't gonna work.

How ya doing, buddy?

I think these polls and studies are a bigger waste of money than any "abstinence" program. Who are these people being polled? Where do they come from? Has anyone here ever met one of these people?

And who's to say these people didn't lie? How do we know that they didn't see some "grey area" that is or is not in this test? Are blowjobs sex? I mean, whats the fucking criteria already?

In the end, who gives a shit about what USA Today has to tell me about everyone else and lets get back to fucking and drowning our daily worries in Firefly and Jack Daniels.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Why is it the governments business when a responsible adult has sex? Junior Anti-Sex League, ahoy.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Why is this newsworthy? People have been fucking before getting married since the beginning of time. I was under the impression that this was common knowledge. Just because sex wasn't thrown around in the media like it is today doesn't mean that people weren't doing it.

I hate the idea that it is somehow gov't responsibility to educate people about having sex. If parents would parent their own kids, we could save a shitload of money.

I was speaking idiomatically.

This doesn't surprise me that much. Maybe the extreme percentage does, but not the fact that more people have had pre-marital sex than those who have not.

Realistically speaking, marriage is only a requirement of most religions. For those of us who don't participate in a religion, marriage is less of a requisite for the fulfillment of life and more of a method of entering a different tax bracket. It's become a rite of passage, and that's the only reason the nonreligious still pursue the sacrament of matrimony. Functionally, being a commonlaw spouse is no less rewarding.

If you care about someone enough to enter into "marriage", what difference does a notarized piece of paper make? Who cares what the government or church thinks? A binding relationship eschews all of that and the only thing that matters is the commitment between two people. Sex is one of the most natural acts that exists between lovers and no presiding body will ever be able to change our instincts. Paper, schmaper.

For those who have casual sex, even then there are reasons: curiosity over a "taboo", a desire to become practiced so that one can truly please a lover that counts, a need to unwind and enjoy something in the moment, etc. These are all valid, despite the risks involved. Some authorities would insist otherwise, but that's really just crowd control. Nobody else has the right to tell you what to do with your body.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Crash Landon

For those who have casual sex, even then there are reasons: curiosity over a "taboo", a desire to become practiced so that one can truly please a lover that counts, a need to unwind and enjoy something in the moment, etc. These are all valid, despite the risks involved. Some authorities would insist otherwise, but that's really just crowd control. Nobody else has the right to tell you what to do with your body.

And, yet, the government does so every single day.

FELIPE NO

Haha, I'm just imaging the 5% of people who firmly believe in the "no sex before marriage" rule, and how they'd react to this. However I'm picturing your stereotypical prudish old lady (who probably think most of the USA population shares their chastity), which makes my perception seem rather close-minded.

I can't help but wonder what the results are for other countries; if the USA is 95%, then what would, say, England's ratio be? I'm not going to share any conjecture here, seeing as I'm just being naively inquisitive.

I can't be sure of the reliability of this poll. LeHah said it perfectly; people can be too vague and unreliable. Until they conduct these polls with lie detectors in tow, I will be skeptical.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Devoxycontin

Also this statistic seems a little odd, do they consider sex before a 2nd marriage and outside of the first, pre-marital sex?

I would say yes, they probably do. By its definition, pre-marital sex is sex that occurs outside of wedlock. One could be divorced and still have pre-marital sex, presuming that the possibility of a second marriage exists, which it usually does.

"Pre-marital sex" is just a nicey-nice way of saying "adultery".

Originally Posted by Capo

And, yet, the government does so every single day.

You're overgeneralizing for the sake of beating a straw man, Capo. Not every government agency is concerned with your sex life. I doubt the Customs Bureau really cares where you stick your dick.

It's only certain agencies, and particular people within those agencies who possess an agenda, as Devo mentioned, that create a fuss over sex.

See, free sex is bad for the U.S. government. They like to hide behind morality and disease control. But really, it's tax code that makes the government care. If everyone could just have sex whenever, why, there'd be no need for marriage! If there was no need for marriage, then nobody would need to pay for marriage licenses! And then how would the government monitor you for taxation purposes? Ever notice how almost every important form has a section pertaining to your marital status, as if that somehow affects your ability to write a check? It's statistics. Nothing else. If the government couldn't tax you for being in a relationship, it wouldn't care with whom you slept.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Devoxycontin

Maybe it's just me but a lot of people who have sex cannot be labeled as "responsible adults." I don't feel this way because they had sex, but because regardless of being over 18 many people cannot deal with the consequences of sex. The government has no business in the private lives of others, however my previous points still stand.

Very good point, but I feel this could be handled in a different way. Instead of vehemently opposing all instances of an "undesirable" act, why not educate on how to responsibly enjoy these acts? The government does not outright tell adults to abstain from drinking alcohol, but instead educates them on the risks associated with such behavior. The same could be done with pre-marital sex. Education over blind acceptance is always a good thing.

Originally Posted by Devoxycontin

Don't always confuse the government with individuals in office Capo.

The government currently prohibits adults from ingesting recreational substances. How exactly is this the policy of individuals?

Also, God, I think I'm beginning to agree with a lot of Libertarian ideals.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Devoxycontin

Because there is a huge lobby for Alcohol. So powerful that alcohol isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

I know, Devo, I just find it damn disappointing that economic giants like "Big Tobacco" have the power to control the government. America would be a much better place if this were not the case.

Originally Posted by Devoxycontin

The government also creates laws that keep people safe. Narcotics put people at risk and in danger, period.

As do a lot of activities that are currently legal. Narcotics being illegal only furthurs the amount of "risk and danger" users are put at.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

The study found women virtually as likely as men to engage in premarital sex

This just in: Women enjoy sex. More at 11.

Quote:

99 percent of the respondents had had sex by age 44

I uhh, would hope so.

Kids have been fucking before marriage since the dawn of time. A government funded program is not going to stop or put a dent in it. I do suggest they should spend the funding on education into prevention of diseases, unwanted pregnancy, birth control, etc etc.

You will not stop teens from engaging in premarital sex. Those that are going to do it, are going to do it. Those who are going to wait until they are married are going to do so regardless of any government study. More time on education for those that will.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Birds are always gonna fly. Teenagers are always gonna fuck. Aside from 1984-esque brainwashing, there's really no way around that.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Crash Landon

"Pre-marital sex" is just a nicey-nice way of saying "adultery".

In that case put me under the column that reads "adulterous whoremongering motherfucker". I think that has a nice ring to it.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Encephalon

In that case put me under the column that reads "adulterous whoremongering motherfucker". I think that has a nice ring to it.

Sounds all too familiar, dood.

So are people supposed to be surprised by this statistic?

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by LeHah

I think these polls and studies are a bigger waste of money than any "abstinence" program.

Too true.
Who really cares if people are having sex before marriage? And when it comes to kids, supressing them from it is just gonna make them want to do it more. Many teens are gonna have sex anyway, cant' exactiy stop them unless you have them on 24/7 surveillance. It's best that they do it safely.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I wouldn't say this study is far-fetched at all.

I've known people who swear by the whole "no sex before marriage" bit and wouldn't hesitate to kick any "dissenting" partners to the curb. By the time they reach their mid-20s, they realize they're probably not getting hitched anytime soon, so they abandon that practice.

For the uninitiated, the whole "no sex before marriage" thing stemmed from the days where women were the equivalent of cattle and they were most valuable "untouched". Fathers would use their daughters as bargaining chips for gold and/or land. As a result, fathers guarded their daughters' purity with their lives. The Church saying "no sex before marriage" made the fathers' job easier in that respect.

Most amazing jew boots

The abstinence only education thing down there in the US is fucked up. It obviously isn't working and will never work. The whole gang of right wing Christian agenda pushers are just doing it to appeal to a certain demographic to get votes and funding. According to this study, 95% of them apparently didn't practice what they are currently preaching. I think that it'd be difficult to think of a bigger waste of tax dollars than this huge investment.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I don't see anything wrong with sex as long as you are being smart about it. Learn the proper way to prevent disease and make sure you take the precautions to limited infections, etc., I mean, its about teaching people how to be smart and have the knowledge to be safe. Just telling them they shouldn't have sex, doesn't help in terms of educating people.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I heard this on the radio yesterday, and the man speaking made this comment:

"And it's likely going to continue."

Gee--ya think?!

Quote:

"Pre-marital sex" is just a nicey-nice way of saying "adultery".

They are two separate things. At least one person needs to be married in order for the act to be adultery.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by The Wise Vivi

I don't see anything wrong with sex as long as you are being smart about it. Learn the proper way to prevent disease and make sure you take the precautions to limited infections, etc., I mean, its about teaching people how to be smart and have the knowledge to be safe. Just telling them they shouldn't have sex, doesn't help in terms of educating people.

You are very right. There's no way to stop them so you should move on to the next step which is to educate them about it and make sure they understand consequences and so on.
I think my high school did a pretty good job in teaching students about sex education. They made sure you had to take sex education freshman year. This way everyone would know about it instead of putting it off and taking it senior year and saying, "CRAP, I wish I knew about AIDS before I tapped that ass." People might think freshman year (age 14) is too soon but they're wrong. My school had the right idea; to education us on diseases and protection as soon as possible. Other high schools in my area didn't care when their students took sex education so I'm glad I went to my school.

Quote:

"Pre-marital sex" is just a nicey-nice way of saying "adultery".

Pre-marital sex just means sex before marriage; you don't have to be committed to your sex partner.
Adultery is a crime in which you are married and you cheat on your lawful spouse.
Adultery is, by far, more worse then pre-marital sex.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Pre-marital sex means fornication; adultery requires one or both participants to be married.

So I read this article earlier today while at work and had the following to say:

Quote:

So 95% of Americans have had premarital sex. The other 5% were either Mormon, Catholic, Jewish, or disfigured.

I think I'm right.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Drex

Pre-marital sex means fornication; adultery requires one or both participants to be married.

So I read this article earlier today while at work and had the following to say:

I think I'm right.

Or they're babies....

FELIPE NO

Quote:

Posted by Devoxycotin
Because there is a huge lobby for Alcohol. So powerful that alcohol isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Schools I attended had all sorts of sex education, there was even free condom Wednesday promoted by a local Clinic. This didn't stop people in my high school from being stupid about sex.

Lobbyists have little to do with it. We tried banning alcohol in the 20s, if you'll recall. Didn't go over too well. Other drugs have negative social stigmas attached to their use, and the government still has a hell of a time trying to enforce those bans. It's hard to enforce a law nobody cares about - just look at speed limits.

I really question the validity of this study. I come down pretty firmly against the abstinence crowd, but 95% of the population? That is such a wild figure it screams for independent verification. I hesitate to even think about using this as a talking point, the study seems to erroneous. I really have to wonder what sort of population sample they used. Were they counting divorcees?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by jouhou

Adultery is a crime in which you are married and you cheat on your lawful spouse.

No it's not. It's considered a sin, not a crime. It can be grounds for divorce, but you can't get arrested for cheating on your spouse.


I've had premarital sex and enjoy it. Abstinence only learning is complete and utter bullshit. There should be more to it and even though the parents should teach the kids about sex education, they are often nervous around the kids or they personally don't know that much themselves. It would be nice if proper sex education came somewhere.

Jam it back in, in the dark.