Posted on 12/22/2011 4:25:03 PM PST by wagglebee
BOSTON December 21, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – One in 13 girls aged 14-to-20, or about 7.7 percent, who participated in a recent study from Boston University’s School of Public Health said they have engaged in “Multi-Person Sex” (MPS), reports the Daily Mail. Researchers believe imitation of pornography is a leading cause.
The study involved 328 girls from underprivileged areas of the city who had visited a neighborhood clinic for sexual health issues. However, economic status did not appear to be determinative of risky sexual behavior.
The study found more than half of the girls who had engaged in MPS had been coerced into having group sex by a boy or forced into a “gang rape,” and one-third of participants had used drugs or alcohol before the encounter. In 45 percent of MPS encounters, at least one male did not use a condom.
The average age when girls began having intercourse with multiple partners was 15.6.
Researchers said the use of pornography – by either partner – was a primary influence. “Girls were five times more likely to engage in MPS if they or their boyfriends had watched porn,” said Emily Rothman, an Associate Professor in the Department of Community Health Sciences at the university. “Out of those who engaged in MPS, 50 percent did things their partners saw in porn first. Porn may be influencing the sexual behavior of these teens.”
The researchers findings give further credence to the conclusions of Canadian filmmaker Sharlene Azam, whose 2009 documentary Oral Sex is the New Goodnight Kiss documented girls as young as 11 going to sex parties and having intercourse with multiple partners. Azam attributed teenage hypersexual behavior to porn consumption.
Patrick A. Trueman, President of Morality in Media, told LifeSiteNews.com, “While the [Boston University] report is shocking, it is not altogether a surprise because…we know from scientific studies [pornography use] leads one to engage in the same activities that are viewed in the pornographic film.”
A 2005 survey found, “Unwanted porn found its way to 17% of 10- to 11-year-old boys, 16% of girls 10 to 11 years old.”
Trueman, the former Chief of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Justice Department, said that pornography distorts an underdeveloped part of teenagers’ brains known as the prefrontal cortex, which is “the home of good decision-making and reasoning.”
Scientists and psychologists have concluded this has a lifelong impact on growing boys and girls. “While masturbating to porn, the adolescent brain is being shaped around a sexual experience that is isolating, visceral, and completely void of any love or compassion,” wrote Alexandra Katehakis of Psychology Today. “This has the potential to lead to great problems in sexual compulsivity and sex addiction throughout the adolescent boy’s life, because his brain gets shaped to expect the ‘heroin-like’ porn dopamine rush from all of his real-life sexual experiences.” This expectation will lead the teen to “seek out riskier and more visceral experiences that resonate with his early porn use.”
A 2009 CyberSentinel poll claims 13-to-16 year-olds spend almost two hours a week viewing pornography. The average age a child is first exposed to internet pornography is 11.
According to Psychology Today, a 2010 study of 73 Swedish teenagers aged 14-20 revealed that teenage boys who viewed pornography accepted the notion that “women are there solely to satisfy the men’s needs…more or less uncritically.”
So freepmail me. I personally find this fascinating because it flies in the face of everything I’ve observed about women in every other setting. I simply don’t get it. Women aren’t supposed to prefer multiple partners.
Imprinting.
I’d venture that people who marry their first sexual partners are imprinted on them and more apt to have long happy marriages.
I’d further venture that having multiple partners blurs the imprinting and starts an imprint on variety, rendering a single partner solution incomplete and unsatisfying.
Very true. A principle part of rap was degrading women to the status of sexual beasts too. Much like a certain religion that prowls around the edges of our culture today.
Translation: PERFECT DATE. One thing left to do, especially if all you had was a '62 Corvair and $5.
But at the same time? All you have to do is watch a man handle a sandwich and a remote at the same time to wonder if this isn't a fantasy best left to pros.
they were the ideal candidates for cults since they were taught to obey authority.
I suspect the elders would regard that as an unintended consequence...
And do we fund this crap (Sex Studies) with taxpayer dollars?
“I personally find this fascinating because it flies in the face of everything I’ve observed about women in every other setting. I simply don’t get it. Women aren’t supposed to prefer multiple partners.”
Do not confuse accepted social assertions with discreet truth. I am not going to get into the conversation further, but will say that my observations would support what Grunthor has said.
Also, bear in mind that among heterosexuals, all those no account dog men are somewhere, somehow finding like minded women. There is no sex fairy doing this via magic. If fewer women are doing it, -those- women are very busy indeed.
Yes on all points.
As long as we’re speculating...
If a woman is in a group/society/tribe where a monogamous relationship is not the guarantee of long term protection and sustenance, her alternatives are limited to being able to go it alone, or being able to keep the attention of multiple partners for fractional support from each.
She’d better be good at it, or she will starve in her old age.
People are only truly good at things they enjoy...
Add me to that mail, if you would.
I have the feeling your observations/thoughts would be all the more intriguing because, as Melas says, it flies in the face of the projected What Women Want.
I know what women want.
I strongly agree with your first comment, but on the second one I have a different ‘view’.
You could call it “a loosening of your morals” and once you’ve done something, it’s easier to repeat. Once you steal, once you lie, once you cheat, etc. Broken Commandments.
Those who watch porn become bored and crave more and ‘different’ types of porn. Nothing good can come of it.
I knew some pretty hot girls back in the day....that probably never heard of porn.
FWIW-
***I think porn falls under freedom of the press.***
then why can’t I print money?
Almost every friend of mine has either had or is in pursuit of a ménage a trois. One of my very good friends was propositioned by a married couple who live the swinging lifestyle. Apparently, this garbage is endemic & it was only a matter of time (with smut like Cosmo pushing the agenda) that it infected the youth.
I know what women wanted in the 1960s!
And it wasn’t me! ;-(
*sigh* My friend, some things never change *sigh*
It's also the reason why men like watching porn about lesbians. One naked girl is good, two naked girls are better.
Ya think?
Monkey see, monkey do.
Birds do it,
Bees do it,
Even monkeys in the trees do it...
Poop all over the place? ;^)
Worse, porn was assigned to be a causative factor rather than an associated factor. These girls were already deep in trouble. Porn does provide 'social permission' for all sorts of evils and activates hormonal responses likely to increase the drive for sexual activity, but that's hardly news, nor does it explicitly indicate that it motivates group sex.
Sounds more like a these researchers were a bunch of closet pervs looking for something 'fun' to study.
That’s monkey see, monkey doo-doo...
No kidding. My wife’s fantasies include things like folded laundry, mowed lawns and trimmed hedges.
Group activities would be the neighbor coming over to help put in a new fence posts.
Gentlemen, may I introduce you two...?
Maybe add a father!!!
I was going to have group sex once but when I grabbed one, the rest of the flock ran away.
Thanks to Bj Clinton for normalizing such behavior.
And then they throw it at you.
If that were true lesbians would have tame sex, and there would be no female johns feeding the sex industry.
Neither of those are the case.
(we won’t talk about things emergency rooms see with lesbians).
“Why? Seriously, why do people want to do this?’’< Insecurity perhaps?
Ah yes. Those emergency-room occurances ... not something that generally crosses my mind...
“Monogamism is a hopeful wish of the female of our species..
It is an admirable idea and goal, but unattainable by and large.”
Bullsh*t.
What???? I’ve seen a few ER things but not with lesbians!!! Usually with the other kind of homo & some of their toys. What the hell do lesbians do?
Geez. I thought I was pretty callous, but clearly I’m sheltered.
Your comments about monogamy are unfounded & could be used as a justification for promiscuity. Shame
“18 - 20 age group works but if you missed the obvious it’s called sarcasm. I shouldn’t have to spell it out.”
I have daughters and simply found your comment icky.
You and me ain’t nothing but animals,
So lets do like they do on the discovery channel..
D@MN! I got that song stuck in my head again!
Yeah, and how many things are there that you can do, really? Five? Eight, if you are really kinky? How did they judge what was being imitated, versus what just happens when people of opposite sex get naked together? So "their partners" observed various pairings of organs, and then did the same act? They wouldn't have the slightest inclination to do the same acts without the demonstration?
Where the Hell is the chivalry? Oh that’s right, the Nazi bitches ditched that tradition, and parents happily abdicated.
“Group activities would be the neighbor coming over to help put in a new fence posts.”
Sometimes a fencepost is just a fencepost . . .
Actually, it makes sense to me... Popular culture tells us many guys fantasize about being with more than 1 woman at a time. My guess is that the women find they like the attention and maybe even have some latent lesbian tendencies... While the guys get worried that their women might discover they really don't need the guys.
Mark
It's prohibited by the Constitution.
Mark
And once aroused, a man doesn't have enough blood to think with both heads and realize that the two women really don't need or want him around.
Mark
You and me aint nothin’ but mammals,
So let’s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel...
Mark
“Gentlemen, may I introduce you two...?”
May I introduce you to the concept of the representative sample?
If you want to draw inferences about a large population—for instance, human males—your sample must be representative of that population.
You cannot draw credible inferences if your sample is limited to a small group of *self-selected* subjects, such as the small number of men who chose to make such remarks on this thread.
It would be equally valid—which is to say, completely invalid—if I decided on the basis of your remarks that all women have a problem with men.
I just wanted to see if you’d start in on a man named PapaBear with your tough, macho attitude, and tell him about his broad brush. I figured you only talked that way to women and it looks like I was right.
“I just wanted to see if you’d start in on a man named PapaBear with your tough, macho attitude, and tell him about his broad brush. I figured you only talked that way to women and it looks like I was right.”
1. I have displayed no “tough, macho attitude.”
2. PapaBear expressed his opinion. He didn’t make sweeping assertions about all men.
3. As for only talking “that way” to women, I must disagree. I often speak to men in a polite and gentle way, just as I did to you.
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.