Then again, this woman would would be 80 years old right now and she was 28 when your parents were born.
Posted on 12/20/2006 8:04:33 AM PST by Froufrou
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
That ACTION gave me a daughter and as was the custom of the day.......a wife!
My premarital shenanigans were the exception not the rule!
From my perspective 9 out of 10 is MUCH too high and certainly not indicative of 40's and early 50's, based on my experience and my geographical location!
Ah. But so will abstinence. And abstinence is a better preparation for (eventual) marriage on a better day. You know anything about behavioral patterning? Solo sex leaves you wired for... solo sex.
Honestly,
I believe 'right match' doesn't exist for everyone, and I don't believe everyone was meant to be married. However, for those who've found the right one for them, I'm thrilled!
For the rest of us, we make do ;)
There are web sites for that sort of thing.
...though, you'll probably want to rinse your eyes out with Clorox when you're done!
How do you define adulthood?18. The way the law already does.
Take it from me: here's how you can tell if you're ready for intercourse: look on your left-hand ring finger. Is there a ring there? Look at the head on your pillow. Is that the person you married? OK, you're good to go.In other words, "do as we say, not as we do."
That approach does not work with teens. They are hypersensitive to perceived hypocrisy.
-Eric
The best way to ensure the well-being of the child is not to even risk it. Abstinence absolutely ensures that.
Too often it fails (even in just the fact of giving into lust - then "ah, the heck with worrying about condoms"). And a child is born in poverty and ends up in the middle of some ridiculous civil suit on Judge Judy.
Or, they are aborted.
As for calling it "sin", if it were translated into science it would still prove a better thing for any child of the participant than pre-marital (and all extra-marital) sex.
You mean your "action" was IN the '40s-'50s?
This study seems to either cover or only find that people BORN in the '40s-'50s had just as much pre-marital sex as those later. I presume you were earlier!
Abstinence means "not doing it".
"Solo" means you're not doing it.
So they're not mutually exclusive. You have to have a "2nd" to not be abstinent!
I don't know that that's true about solo patterning. Curious, but somehow I doubt it.
No,its not all marriage is.Yet lets be real,Rebel.Especially in the early part of marriage,the sexual aspect IS a major factor.
You know anything about behavioral patterning? The more people you have sexual experience with before marriage, the more likely is subsequent marriage break-up, because (advertently or inadvertently) you're patterning yourself to crave variety.
This isn't preparation for marriage. It's preparation for divorce.
But people can change, too. So you have my prayers, as I hope I have yours.
I don't argue with your point. I only ask how realistic it is, given the society we inhabit and the urges that are hard-wired into us. If someone is able to maintain their abstinence, bravo for them (and I don't mean that sarcastically). But I would argue that for the vast, vast majority of the population, particularly between 18-25, there's just no way, and therefore it's best that they be well-educated as to how to best protect themselves.
Then again, this woman would would be 80 years old right now and she was 28 when your parents were born.
That's not hypocrisy or dishonesty on your mother's part. A certain wisdom (sometimes) comes with age.
I agree it's rather important. But the mileage given to it (esp. by males, as usual) indicates it is WAY too important. Even when you're young.
But let's look at your statement again:
"what if the couple gets married and one partner or the other has an aversion to sex,or certain types of sex,or perhaps is more sex driven than the other one?"
SO ASK THE OTHER PERSON ABOUT IT!!!!
And, see, I find nothing wrong with that. I know of lots of people with good marriages who played around and many who were pregnant at the wedding. No biggie.
I disagree with your thesis entirely. I had plenty of variety between 16-26. I think it's because of that variety (and I'm not saying I was Wilt Chamberlain) that I was able to recognize what was truly special. I have to imagine that if I'd married young(er) and retained my virginity up to that point, I'd be climbing the walls right about now wondering what else is out there and is that something else better than my wife?
No Sex Since 1957
A crusty old Marine Sergeant Major found himself at a gala event hosted by a local liberal arts college. There was no shortage of extremely young, idealistic ladies in attendance, one of whom approached the Sergeant Major for conversation.
"Excuse me, Sergeant Major, but you seem to be a very serious man. Is something bothering you?"
"Negative, ma'am. Just serious by nature."
"The young lady looked at his awards and decorations and said, "It looks like you have seen a lot of action."
"Yes, ma'am, a lot of action."
The young lady, tiring of trying to start up a conversation, said, "You know, you should lighten up a little. Relax and enjoy yourself."
The Sergeant Major just stared at her in his serious manner.
Finally the young lady said, "You know, I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but when is the last time you had sex?"
"1957, ma'am."
"Well, there you are. You really need to chill out and quit taking everything so seriously! I mean, no sex since 1957! She took his hand and led him to a private room where she proceeded to "relax" him several times.
Afterwards, panting for breath, she leaned against his bare chest and said, "Wow, you sure didn't forget much since 1957!"
The Sergeant Major, glancing at his watch, said in his matter-of-fact voice, "I hope not, it's only 2130 now."
ROFLMAO
To me, this is about as silly as "advertizing" all the time about drinking and "being careful".
It's shown all the time as a great time, and "everyone does it", and is tacitly approved.
Then we tell them "don't drive when you're drunk". (Never mind the fact that half the drunks won't have any clue about not driving, nor that 1 person would be so moral as to not drink with all the temptation around and help his friends - yet they can't stop getting drunk continually? That's another point not needed now, but can't resist.)
Better if they learned to resist the urges and stop drinking like dolphins.
And that doesn't even ever possibly effect a totally innocent life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.