Glenden BrownDo you serve the 5% or the 95%?
So seriously, there was no way I could let this one pass without commenting.
It seems that 95% of Americans have had premarital sex. Even more interesting, the rate has been stable since the 1950s. It gets better - by their 40’s 99% of Americans have had sex. Amanda as pandagon wins the award for pithiest response:
the number of Americans who practice abstinence until marriage is lower than the number of Americans who make money endorsing abstinence until marriage
zuzu at feministe wins for hands down snarkiest comment (with regard to Miss America):
She got to keep her crown (you know, the one that she got because she paraded around in a bikini so she could display her wholesomeness and purity), but she had to grovel at the feet of Donald Trump to do it, and promise to go to rehab, and tell some sob story about how it was The Big City that had corrupted her. I suppose the pearl-clutchers back home in Kentucky get to keep their illusions that way: New Yorkers may fuck before marriage, and drink when they’re just shy of 21, but that’s Not What Good People In The Heartland Do.
Except for the part where it is, in fact, What Good People In The Heartland Do. Frequently.
Yes, despite abstinence-only sex education, despite hellfire-and-brimstone from their preachers, despite True Love Waits and the Silver Ring Thing, despite Purity Balls and Purity Pledges and creepy covering by daddy, 95% of Americans — male and female — will fuck before their wedding day.
From Jessica at feministing:
“This is reality-check research. Premarital sex is normal behavior for the vast majority of Americans, and has been for decades,†says study author Lawrence Finer, director of domestic research at the Guttmacher Institute. “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 12–29-year-olds. It would be more effective to provide young people with the skills and information they need to be safe once they become sexually active—which nearly everyone eventually will.â€
Yeah, but what fun would that be? Then you couldn’t make folks feel all slutty and bad for doing what pretty much everyone else is also doing. And that would just be silly.
Allow me to sum up: the horse is long gone and we’re not gonna be able to slam that barn door shut anyway.
Of course there’s more.
This comes as no surprise to me.
When I was in women’s history in college, we talked about incidence of premarital sex in 19th America. The author we were reading had data on native born Americans showing the a plurality of couples admitted to engaging in sexual behaviors prior to marriage and that many American families regarded sexual activity between engaged persons quite casually; while they did not encourage it, it was treated as an open secret and no cause of serious shame or social opprobrium. Social history of 16th and 17th century North Americans reveals attitudes toward sexuality that would seem shockingly libertine to many Americans; marriage and living arrangements were quite casual and because of poor communication it was possible for persons to leave their spouses, move to another community, claim to be married and no one questioned it. In Marriage: A History, Stephanie Coontz recounts the variety of very casual arrangements people called marriage - prior to the 19th century, almost no one was legally married and an overwhelming majority choose to forego church weddings and hence they were “living in sin.” Or not since most churches were pretty casual about most people’s domestic arrangements.
With regard to establishing good public policy today, the question is simply how do we as a society serves the needs of the majority of Americans. As a matter of responsible government, abstinence only education doesn’t work, leads to negative outcomes (higher rates of STI’s among graduates than among those with no sexuality education) and wastes time and resources.
Comprehensive sexuality education serves the needs of 95% of Americans and should be implemented in American communities. CNN, however, has this quote; Wade Horn is a Bush appointee:
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.
Of course, the wingnuts aren’t buying any of this research claptrap:
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.â€
A report like this one reveals one more issue on which the conservative movement is out of touch with America - not just mainstream America but even conservatives. Think about it - approximately 25% of American self-identify as conservatives. Assuming every person who abstains from premarital sex is conservative, 4 of 5 conservatives are having premarital sex.
Rather than chastise them for their behavior, I think we need to have an honest discussion about sexuality in the United States. I doubt we’ll ever reach Scandinavian levels of comfort with sexuality but we could develop healthier cultural values that honor and respect people’s choices - whether they choose abstinence until marriage or not.
Government support for abstinence only education fails to serve the needs of 9 out of 10 Americans, supports groups such Concerned Women for America who seek to stigmatize what is radically normal behavior, and wastes tax dollars pushing an ideal that Americans have rejected so resoundingly I almost feel bad for conservative ideologues. As yet, there is no research on abstinence only programs that reports any measurable positive effect on behaviors. As a matter of social policy, the needs of 95% of Americans can be met and should be met by comprehensive sexuality education - which because it is comprehensive also serves the needs of the 5%. It’s time to remove politicians and religious zealots from the discussion and instead adopt sensible, effective programs that educators know will work and that families want.
December 21st, 2006 at 9:58 pm
It is hard to imagine a greater conflict of interest in the production of any study. The fact that the Guttmacher Institute, which essentially profits from high levels of sexual promiscuity, produced the study gives it a ZERO on the credibility scale.
RedOrbit reports on the American Life League’s response to the study:
December 22nd, 2006 at 9:40 am
Frank -
You’re going to have explain how the Guttmacher Institute “essentially” profits from high levels of sexual promiscuity. Guttmacher is a private research foundation.
From their website:
“The Guttmacher Institute, an independent, nonprofit, tax-exempt organization with offices in New York and Washington, D.C., was established in 1968 to provide research, policy analysis and education in the fields of reproductive health, reproductive rights and population. It was named to honor a distinguished obstetrician-gynecologist, author and leader in reproductive rights. While Alan F. Guttmacher was president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and a leader in the International Planned Parenthood Federation in the 1960s and early 1970s, he saw the need for the institution that now bears his name, and he nurtured its development.”
Guttmacher’s numbers on sexual behavior are reliable - the World Health Organization uses on their numbers (which is how I originally found Guttmacher).
I don’t know what you know about Planned Parenthood but it’s not some organization with a nefarious goal. PP was founded by Margaret Sanger - a public health nurse who got tired of seeing women lose their health and their lives to unwanted, unplanned pregnancies; Sanger believed women and men should have the information and resources needed to support their reproductive choices. Today, PP offices offer reproductive health care - including basic medical exams, contraception, education, ob/gyn services and yes, abortion services - to their communities; many offices provide free services for women and men who would not otherwise receive treatment.
Since no one can provide correct treatment without accurate information, AGI does the research to get accurate information into the hands of people - doctors, average folks, and governmental entities. Since ALL can’t actually critique the data, they are attacking the supposed motives of the Guttmacher Institute. Guttmacher’s goals, again from their site:
“The Institute’s mission is to protect the reproductive choices of all women and men in the United States and throughout the world. It is to support their ability to obtain the information and services needed to achieve their full human rights, safeguard their health and exercise their individual responsibilities in regard to sexual behavior and relationships, reproduction and family formation.”
That may be wrong from the perspective of ALL which believes all forms of contraception and family planning (aside from prayer) are wrong. But it seems pretty sound to me.
December 23rd, 2006 at 7:50 am
I prayed for Sex and prayed for Sex, but it eluded me for the longest time. It is with that in mind that I call B.S. on the above stat’s. I’m part of the Majority, damnit!
December 23rd, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Frank,
One embarrasing flaw in your logic. The tobacco industry is for profit and subject to a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders.
Planned Parenthood is a non-profit. No person of group benefits monetarily from exaggeration.
The truth is, as Caveat so honestly communicates, you Frank, like I and Caveat and every other red blooded male, gay and straight, prayed, dreamed and thought about sex constantly during those years.
I remind you of the famous poll
Question: Do you masturbate?
Results: 98% of men answered yes, the other 2% are liars.
December 23rd, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Cliff,
You are right, I did think about sex all the time. But I didn’t have it until I was married.
Imagine if everyone practiced marital fidelity and there were no children conceived out of wedlock. Would there be a Planned Parenthood?
PP gets a crapload of money from the Federal Government. If I were getting a crapload of money from the Federal Government, I would have a tendency to skew studies that ensured that I continued to get my money. So perhaps no individuals benefit monetarily from exaggeration, although I highly doubt that (just look at how much money some of the CEO’s of charitable organizations make in the US). But at the very least, the organization as whole profits (gets more money from the federal government) when they exaggerate.
Planned Parenthood’s entire mission surrounds the desire to encourage children that living lives of chastity is not necessarily the best way to go. So why would they go out of their way to ensure that a study accurately reflects life while at the same time countering their basic premise?
December 23rd, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Ya walked right into that one Frank….Yeah for ME!
1, Assuming the desire to have sex is a VERY BAD REASON to get married, do you support the idea of celibacy?…keeping in mind the divorce rate in the LDS church is as high as among the rest of the country (but lower for atheists)
2. Given the fact that STDs are as high among supposedly chaste Christian youth as it is among we heathens, do you really believe we should not be educating our youth how to be responsible IF they choose to have sex.
Frank, want to know where the really big coronation is for lower divorce and lower out of wedlock pregnancy? It’s not more religion, its less religion and more education.
Put another way, progressive policy and education works much better BY FAR than religious doctrinal teaching.
Peace and Reality for the Season and Forever
December 23rd, 2006 at 4:45 pm
Cliff,
1a. I agree– the desire to have sex is no reason at all in and of itself to get married. But no, I do not advocate celibacy, because there are many other excellent reasons to become married. You should see my gorgeous wife, my two beautiful daughters, and my three handsome sons!
1b. The divorce rate for those in the LDS church who marry in the temple is much lower than the national average, and probably lower than for atheists, but I haven’t checked the statistics.
2. I support the Utah state education curriculum (as far as I understand it) that we teach our children about the exigencies of non-marital sex, but that we do not advocate such practices, as they are a tendent detriment to society (STDs, unwanted children, abuse, etc.) Rather, after making them aware of these things, it is incumbent upon society to advocate abstinence and fidelity.
Also, since you did not address the point of my previous comment, I will assume you concede that I am correct.
December 23rd, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Frank, It is against Utah law to teach contraception in Utah schools.
December 23rd, 2006 at 5:16 pm
If it is against the law for Utah public schools to teach what contraception is, then I (a) stand corrected, and (b) think the law should be changed. Teenagers are generally old enough to be educated about sex, and it is as big a travesty to engage in Victorian denial (and not teach children about it) as it is to encourage the use of this life-creating power in an immature way.
December 24th, 2006 at 8:16 am
Sex is so much a part of everything, every day. It’s hard for me to figure out just where that education should begin or how I need to share my experiences with others, my kids, for example. Making babies, is an awsome ‘power’, yes, but on some levels, all this sexuality is simply some kind of unfolding into the future. Weren’t some of our forefathers tasked with building arks and loading critters, two-by-two? Did thier directive come in the form of some study? Humans, and other sexy critters, have these imparatives deep down in our genes, and society can stack all kinds of notions about right, wrong, population pressure, not being left in the minority, and so on against the ear of the throbbing, hormone-driven, teenage, Raw young person, only hoping for the’ best’. I dare say a lot of us don’t get much in the way of thoughtful guidance. I guess, my point is that, however squeemish or unskilled we are about discussing Sex, we ought to at least point out to our kids, that the consequenses are very often a life-long haul, not without blessings, but certainly worthy of a considerstion of contraceptives, serious chat-fest with thier partner and others upon whom they depend. Impulses will pass shortly. Kids are forever.