Most Americans have had premarital sex, study finds

[Garfield1966]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-1...rital-sex_x.htm

I have to wonder how much money was wasted on that little venture. Next thing you know they will launch a study to see if gravity really exists.

When are people going to realize that sex feels good and that people like to have sex? It's not rocket science. Boys and girls have hormones. They are an over whelming force. The best parents can do in most cases is teach their kids to be responsible and hope it works. To not teach safe sex is to court trouble. No, I would not want my child to have sex at 13 or 14 or 15 ... but it does happen and as a parent, denying that seems to inviting trouble. The pressures and environments that children are exposed to are very difficult to deal with. Curiosity is in most cases, an over whelming force. I wonder how many parents are under the delusion that their children are remaining abstinent while in reality their children are nailing anything that moves. Seems to me that the best course of action is to have good communication with your kids. Advocate holding off till you feel its right and then always always always use protection.

 

[delldude]

Or how many worry about their 13 or so year old daughter possibly becoming pregnant at an early age and getting that girl on the pill or what ever else...gives a percieved ok for being sexually active.I've seen it happen more than once.And it worked the wrong way too.

 

[Garfield1966]

I’d be hard pressed to believe that giving a 13 yr old the pill will be perceived as an ‘OK’ to have sex. My guess would be that there are other issues at work. I do see your point and I agree that it is a fine line, but for these groups to promote abstinence with out any advise or support for those who decide not too is in my opinion irresponsible.

While abstinence may be right for a few, most people enjoy sex. They see nothing wrong or ‘dirty’ about it. While I do not feel it is appropriate for a 13 yr old to be engaging in sex (not sure what age is ‘ok’ verses not ‘ok’) 16 and 17 year olds will have sex. Mother nature has pretty much guaranteed that. The hormones kick in and to expect a 16 or 17 year old to fight that is in my opinion wishful thinking at best. While those little abstinence clubs are cute, if one believes the study and ones own life experiences, some of those kids are lying their asses off.

 

[delldude]

So hows a child of 13 or 18 to read a parent setting them up for birth control other than a subliminal ok to fool around?

Do you think the child will come away all touchy feely that Mom cares so much,she bought me birth control pills...?

I think Mom just told her,"I did it,its ok for you too".

Discretion is up to the person but in most cases i've seen this way,it was an open door.

 

[Garfield1966]

Very valid point. My question then becomes, what is the child to do who is sexually courious who has parents who do not talk to them or make it easy for the child to talk to them about such issues?

I guess it becomes a double edged sword that will cut either way. Not sure there is a right or wrong answer.

My biggest beef is that this country seems to be very prude. We treat sex as evil in public to a degree even though it is used to sell everything from cars to TV's. To me there is nothing wrong with two people who care for each other to fool around out side the bounds of wed lock.

 

[delldude]

You're quite right about our attitude in the US towards sex....We get laughed at about all our censorship and prudism and sex scandals in Europe.
You ever see some those Euro comercials?Talk about sex in advertising

 

[KCFlyer]

So hows a child of 13 or 18 to read a parent setting them up for birth control other than a subliminal ok to fool around?

Do you think the child will come away all touchy feely that Mom cares so much,she bought me birth control pills...?

I think Mom just told her,"I did it,its ok for you too".

Discretion is up to the person but in most cases i've seen this way,it was an open door.

There is a large group (sorry dude...they are predominantly right wing) in my state that wants to teach abstinence only sex education...and they do NOT want any discussion of condoms or other forms of birth control in these classes. Then...they bury their own heads in the sand while the hormones tell Jimmy and Ashley that there is fun to be had in their nether regions. Ashley becomes pregnant...Jimmy goes back to bible school and yet another teenage girl joins the ranks of single parenthood.

I happen to have a 13 year old daughter. It's kind of scary. Do you know what is the rage in middle school? "Rainbow parties". If you're not sure about what those are...several girls wear different color lipsticks and give a boy a blowjob. Then they look at the colorful "rainbow" they've created. I don't think liberals taught them this. But if the right wing in my state wants to pretend that if you don't discuss it, it won't happen...they are in for a shocking wake up call. I plan on teaching my kid to respect herself and her body...and to demand the same from any potential suitors. But I also know that sometimes, even the best of kids will often times go against mom and dads wishes - I know I did...and I'd just as soon have her know that while I don't condone it - if she faces that situation - she is aware of the protection that is available to her.

Can I ask you dude...back in the day, how old were you when you "did it" for the first time? How old was the girl? And did you use a condom?

 

[delldude]

KayCee.... :wub: Right or left whats the difference?
Lib's don't do BJ....?
Honey come here you got to see this....

I don't think liberals taught them this.

Don't tell me its a vast right wing conspiracy now...

But I also know that sometimes, even the best of kids will often times go against mom and dads wishes - I know I did...and I'd just as soon have her know that while I don't condone it - if she faces that situation - she is aware of the protection that is available to her.

My dear old dad once told me rather quickly and succinctly
Hey son,keep it in your pants" much to my suprise

My point is in this day and age parents often try and help with what they percieve as good intentions that don't neccessarily pan out.(or were thought out very much)

Like the guy I worked with at U who had forced his daughter on the pill and she took that as he thought she was out screwing the football team.They don't talk much to this day and yes she is quite a lady.

Had another friend,whose son was attending a Christian based private school and getting straight A's (failing in public school)and met a young lady at the same school and they became pregnant and in all the schools Christian love,they were both expelled.They are married to this day.I don't think his parents ever told them anything about sex...Mom was pregnant when she got married.

My present boss has two daughters,both unwed,both have children...6 months and 1 1/2 and the other 3 days...ones mate doesn't want to work at all and the other has 2 to some other guy and lives with someone else.They (girls)wanted to have kids but now the one is having trouble coping with crying children and both have to live on some type of public assistance.Now they have an 18 year anchor around their necks.Is this anyway to bring up children?Her father had talks to no avail.His fault? I don't think so.

All it takes is a direct talk to your child about the ramifications...at least you tried...but I feel providing contraception gives the wrong signal from a parent.Just like drugs,they won't have a problem copping condoms or the pill.

Can I ask you dude...back in the day, how old were you when you "did it" for the first time? How old was the girl? And did you use a condom?

I practiced one hell of a lot before the 'Big Day'...she was 17 and I 18......... I like the rodeo dude...

 

[Leto2]

I guess I'm with the 5% that didn't have premarital sex. As far as I know, so are my parents, my brothers, and my wife.

I don't have children yet, but I plan on teaching them that premarital sex is NOT ok. I don't plan on basing that on the danger of STD's, early pregnancy, etc, I plan on teaching them that premarital sex is not ok because it is morally wrong -- it's a sin. It worked for me. I'm sure that discussions on AIDS, early pregnancy, etc. will come up, and I'm sure that we'll talk about condoms and birth control, but my children will know that the best cure to STD's and many of the worlds problems is to not have premarital sex. They'll also know that this is how God wants it.

In health classes that I took in school, we were rarely taught not to have premarital sex. I think that it should definitely be taught more than it is now--as opposed to just teaching about "safe sex".

I understand that only teaching "no premarital sex" will not be a solution for everyone. This is because God (and largely morals in general) has been taken out of society and everyday life. If someone doesn't have a strong conviction of the existence of God, then there is no reason not to fornicate. If there is no God, then there are no laws and if there are no laws there is no punishment for breaking them nor a reward for keeping them, nor is there any real basis for morals like not having premarital sex.

I think that handing out condoms or giving a kid birth control only shows that you have no confidence that they can make the correct decision and also makes sex an easier decision for them.

 

[Flying Titan]

I don't have children yet, but I plan on teaching them that premarital sex is NOT ok. I don't plan on basing that on the danger of STD's, early pregnancy, etc, I plan on teaching them that premarital sex is not ok because it is morally wrong -- it's a sin. It worked for me. I'm sure that discussions on AIDS, early pregnancy, etc. will come up, and I'm sure that we'll talk about condoms and birth control, but my children will know that the best cure to STD's and many of the worlds problems is to not have premarital sex. They'll also know that this is how God wants it.

Leto -
Well said. IMHO, this is exactly the right way to go about it. The strongest (and primary) message has to be to abstain. At the same time, you recognize that there is more to talk about beyond that. The key has always been to find the right balance. This is the message I am trying to impart to my children, as well.

That said, the secondary part of your message is where the controversy is. Adolescents need to be given the full message with a broad scope of accurate information if they are to be fully prepared adults. Also, if it's not taught this way, teens will certainly find out elsewhere - without any guarantee of accuracy or with the right moral priorities. Parents and health educators who fail to provide "part one" and "part two" of this message aren't fully preparing or protecting their children.

 

[Garfield1966]

I always find it amusing when people equate god with morality. A clear majority of this country (probably the world) consider them selves religious and yet immoral acts are committed every minute of every day of every week of every month of every year. Are we too believe that only non-believing heathens such as my self are committing these acts?

Teaching ‘no premarital sex’ in my opinion is silly (for me). Sex is enjoyable, if it’s not you are not doing it right. I see no compelling reason why 2 adults should not enjoy them selves as often as their heart desires. They should do so responsibly by using contraception, be tested regularly and just use a bit of common sense. I am glad that I am not burdened by your guilt and sins. To equate the acceptance of premarital sex with ‘lack of morals’ is offensive to say the least. What you chose to do is your prerogative (the benefits of living in a religiously free society) but the belief in god is not required in order to be a moral person.

Laws are made by man. If you violate the laws and you are caught there will be a punishment. I abide by the laws because of the punishments that will ensue if I break them. I treat my fellow man with respect because I hope I will be treated the same way. I do not need a god to live by the golden rule. I do not need incentive to lead a good life just like I do not need incentive to come to work on the holiday. I do it because I believe it is the right thing to do.

 

[Leto2]

I always find it amusing when people equate god with morality. A clear majority of this country (probably the world) consider them selves religious and yet immoral acts are committed every minute of every day of every week of every month of every year. Are we too believe that only non-believing heathens such as my self are committing these acts?

I never said that only non-believers commit immoral acts. However, it is because of my belief in God that I don't commit immoral acts (I don't pretend to be perfect either). Anyone that claims to believe in God and the Bible should be a moral person (they may have some flaws, but they will also be trying to improve and elimate those). I understand that this isn't the case for a lot of people--they are mostly hypocrites. Of course there are some moral people who believe in God and others that don't. I have never believed otherwise.

Teaching ‘no premarital sex’ in my opinion is silly (for me). Sex is enjoyable, if it’s not you are not doing it right. I see no compelling reason why 2 adults should not enjoy them selves as often as their heart desires. They should do so responsibly by using contraception, be tested regularly and just use a bit of common sense. I am glad that I am not burdened by your guilt and sins. To equate the acceptance of premarital sex with ‘lack of morals’ is offensive to say the least. What you chose to do is your prerogative (the benefits of living in a religiously free society) but the belief in god is not required in order to be a moral person.

I'm sorry to hear that this offends you, but my morals are based on the teachings in the Bible. It says pretty clearly in the Bible that fornication (sex out of marriage) is a sin. Therefore, premarital sex is immoral.

I'm not burdened by guilt and sins. Well, because of repentance and the fact that I try to live a moral life I'm not burdened by them. On the contrary God's laws and principles help get rid of my burdens.

I don't believe that belief in God is required to be moral, but I do believe that belief in God is what gives the basis for morality. You are verifying my belief (at least to me) by saying that sex out of wedlock is OK. You are certainly not the only person that believes that--most people probably do. The fact that more and more people believe sex outside of marriage is OK indicates to me that society has degraded.

Laws are made by man. If you violate the laws and you are caught there will be a punishment. I abide by the laws because of the punishments that will ensue if I break them. I treat my fellow man with respect because I hope I will be treated the same way. I do not need a god to live by the golden rule. I do not need incentive to lead a good life just like I do not need incentive to come to work on the holiday. I do it because I believe it is the right thing to do.

What does "right thing to do" mean? If there is no God, then who or what determines what's right and wrong? IMHO right and wrong is something larger than the people on this earth, it comes from God.

(The following paragraph will seem very extreme and offensive to some readers.)
There are also laws made by God which also have punishments and rewards affixed to them depending whether we disobey or follow them. For example: one of God's laws is that sex out of marriage is not OK. Man's law is different: there is no punishment when two consenting adults have sex. However, because it is one of God's laws, there are consequences. Many of them happen in this life: STD's, depression, single parents, children without fathers, etc. Many of these lead to even further consequences for society as a whole: poverty, crime, etc. Can anyone deny that if there were no sex outside of marriage (and if marriages actually lasted for some extended period of time), there would be few if any cases of STD's, less poverty, less crime, and the list goes on? We can try to use condoms, vaccines, contraception, welfare, police officers, and many other methods to combat the effects of sex outside of marriage, and I BELIEVE WE SHOULD USE THOSE METHODS, but the best way to combat these and many other problems is for everyone to stop having premarital sex.
(Note that some of the consequences to sex outside of marriage won't even happen in this life, they'll happen afterwards.)

 

[Garfield1966]

When you make the statement "If there is no God, then there are no laws and if there are no laws there is no punishment for breaking them nor a reward for keeping them, nor is there any real basis for morals like not having premarital sex." This seems to imply to me that god is the reason for morals and that those who do not believe in god have no reason to have morals.

Morality is relative for the most part. In general, what I do that does not affect someone else’s life is none of their bloody business. I do not murder others because I would not want it done to me. I help others when able because I hope than when I am in need someone will do the same.

If as you say god is the basis for morality, how can one be moral with out believing in god? Do not see how that argument works. The only thing sex out of wed lock says to me is that people are having sex out of wed lock. As far as I am concerned, if more people got laid more often, the world would be a much happier place than it is right now.

Again, right and wrong are relative. In general, to take another life is wrong. If that person is threatening my life then I believe I would be justified in taking their life first if I am able. It is still murder but in certain cases it may be justified. What those cases are are dependent on the situation. If you are starving to death and need food to feed your children, is stealing some food wrong? Some would say yes, some would say no. I guess it depends on the situation.

I treat others as I would like to be treated. That is what I believe is the ‘right thing to do’. I determine what is right and wrong for me.

I will give you STD’s but that’s it. How premarital sex can be related to crime, poverty and what ever else is on your list I have no idea. Perhaps you can elaborate on that? I have a feeling I know what you are referring to but rather than launching an argument on what may be the wrong issue I’ll wait.

I had premarital sex (a lot). No children were conceived, no one is in the food line or on welfare and the sex was damn good. Why I should have to be deprived of those pleasures because a few people can’t cover up before going in is beyond me. I got married when I was 38. If you think I was waiting till then (20 years past a males prime) you are out of your flipping mind. Sex is waayyyyyy to good to wait that long and I don’t know if my right hand would have lasted that long.

 

[Leto2]

God is the basis for morality and has been in Western society for quite some time (other societies either use God as a basis for morality or some other diety or substitute). I believe that the basis for morality has been established for so long that people who don't believe in God still recognize most morals.
For supporting evidence to this, look at the last 100 years of Western society history. People have been rejecting God more and more--and morals have degraded. For example, in many places in Europe, prostitution is now legal. Homosexuality is much more common now than in the past. Some drugs have been illegalized because of the harm they do and are now becoming more accepted and in some places legal. Sex and violence has become much more rampant and accepted on TV and other media. Pornography is more common and accepted than ever before.

Of course, you will say that if these things don't harm anyone else than they aren't immoral. Say what you will, but my guess is that more people see no problem with these things now than they did 100 years ago. At the same time, prayer has been taken out of schools, there has been a push to get "In God We Trust" off our money, and others have asked for "under God" to be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance. You may argue that no correlation can be proven, but I think the correlation is obvious.

There are some who don't believe in God but still were taught to abide by God-based morals established long ago. The longer people don't believe in God, the more we'll see moral degradation.

Morality is not relative. Your example about murder is simply pointing out different situations. It doesn't prove that morality and right and wrong are relative. By defining murder as "killing for personal gain or enjoyment" murder becomes wrong no matter where you are or what the circumstance is--it's no longer relative (I'm sure there's a better definition, but you get my point).

It seemed to me that when you said "the right thing to do" you were referring to more than just your opinion. I guess you can never accuse someone, like a Republican Congressman, for example, of doing something wrong since maybe in their opinion it's right. Was Abramof wrong to give out bribes?

Premarital sex leads to single parents and children without without fathers and/or mothers. These can often lead to increased poverty and crime, although it's not always the case. If you don't agree with this, then my point still stands with STD's being the only consequence of premarital sex.

Just because you were smart enough to avoid most consequences of premarital sex, doesn't mean everyone is. Like I said before, many of today's problems would be avoided if there were no premarital sex--whether or not people are smart about it.

I'm sorry you didn't have enough self control to wait until you were married. Maybe the real problem was that you couldn't make the commitment to get married until you were 38 (don't tell me that it takes some people that long to find "the right person", I know that; I also know that many people put other priorities before marriage--partly since now it's "OK" to have premarital sex).

You're wrong if you think sex brings happiness. There's a difference between happiness and pleasure which you evidently don't understand.

 

[Garfield1966]

Prostitution in and of its self is a vocation like any other. Making it legal just makes it safer. Making it illegal does not reduce it, just makes it go under ground and be more dangerous for all involved. Homosexuality has more than likely not increased but has just come out in the open. Drugs like alcohol and tobacco that have been accepted since the dawn of time or other drugs that society has deemed "wrong" and cannot profit off of? I’ll give you the sex and media. Porn, not so sure. Much of that is technology related. If you peruse the internet, there is tones of stuff from the 20’s and later that can be found. Prior to that, photography was a bit expensive and not as available.

Whether they harm or do not harm in my opinion has nothing to do with morality. I use the ‘harm’ guide line to determine if I believe it should be legal or not. Morality as I said earlier is a personal judgement. Correlation or not is irrelevant in my opinion. God has no business in the public forum. Religion is personal issue and should be kept in the privacy of your home and place of worship. Any place that is publicly funded has no business endorsing faith of any kind.

I do not believe in god and I have no moral degradation. Just because the morals I live by are similar to those of a believer does not prove that my beliefs are based on yours. It only means they are similar. The ‘morals’ could very well have originated separately.

Yes, your definition of murder is wrong. My point was that murder (the taking of a life, killing may be a better term than murder) is not always wrong. Stealing for profit is wrong (in my opinion) but not all stealing is wrong. And yes morality is relative. Pre marital sex in my opinion is not wrong to you it is. I am not going to judge you and deem you immoral it is your choice, just as having sex out side of marriage was mine.

I do not see Abramof being a valid example. What he did was against the law. In that case, while I may have a personal opinion, since it is against federal law my opinion is irrelevant. In my personal opinion using ones influence to advance ones belief is this case is wrong. I can invision situations where that may not be the case.

No, I agree with you that unprotected sex can lead to unwanted children which can lead to financial hardship, welfare, crime …. Etc Whether it be in or out of marriage is moot in my opinion. If prophylactics, birth control and education were more accessible, it is my belief that there would be a decrease in the problems.

Actually, my guess is that most people have premarital sex with out issue. Pretty much everyone I know has had sex (95% of the population) with out issue. Only a small percentage (relative to the whole) suffer any major consequences.
It had nothing to do with self-control. And yes it did take that long to find someone I felt I could share my life with. Given the fact that the divorce rate is somewhere near 50% in this country proves that there are way too many people who get married way to young to people who are not their ‘soul mate’. I need to find the statistic again but people who get married when they are older are more likely to stay married than those who get married younger. It is OK to have sex in most peoples opinions, just because you do not believe it is OK does not mean I have to agree.

I did not think I said sex brought happiness. I had dry spells and was still happy. Pleasure, well aside from procreation is the main purpose of sex. I sure as heck don’t have sex because it is not pleasurable.

It just occurred to me that we may have different views of what sex is. My guess is that sex is something sacred to you and that fine but not for me. Sex is a hormone driven animal instinct driven an animals need to procreate. It feels good and the more the better. Sex is only that … sex. I love my wife for reasons wholly unrelated to sex. Sex is a benefit we both enjoy. Sex out of marriage was just that, sex. I cared for the women and they cared for me but we both always knew that we would not be spending the rest of our days together. I believe the current term is ‘friends with benefits’.