Posted on 12/04/2007 7:41:41 PM PST by Hildy
People who start having sex at a younger or older than average age appear to be at greater risk of developing sexual health problems later in life, a new study suggests.
The findings, according to researchers, cast some doubts on the benefits of abstinence-only sexual education that has been introduced in U.S. public schools.
Using data from a 1996 cross-sectional survey of more than 8,000 U.S. adults, the researchers found that those who started having sex at a relatively young age were more likely to have certain risk factors for sexually transmitted diseases (STD) -- including a high number of sexual partners and a history of having sex under the influence of alcohol.
On the other hand, both "early" and "late" starters were at increased risk of problems in sexual function. This was true primarily of men, whose problems included difficulty maintaining an erection and reaching orgasm.
The findings are published in the American Journal of Public Health.
It's not clear from the survey why both early and late starters tend to have more sexual dysfunction, according to the researchers, led by Dr. Theo G.M. Sandfort of Columbia University in New York City.
But the findings, they write, "only partially support" abstinence-only sex education -- which encourages teenagers to save sex for marriage.
"Although our findings support an association between early initiation and long-term (STD) risk, they also suggest a more complicated picture of sexual functioning," Sandfort and his colleagues write.
Delaying sexual activity may "create health risks by impeding development of the emotional, cognitive, and interpersonal skills that are crucial to satisfactory sexual functioning and general well-being," they add.
On average, respondents said they had sex for the first time around the ages of 17 or 18. Those who had their first sexual encounter at average age of 14 were considered "early starters" and those who started at age 22 or older were considered "later starters."
It's not possible to determine cause-and-effect from the survey data, according to the researchers. For example, young men with sexual problems may start having intercourse at a later age, contributing to the link between later sexual "debut" and higher odds of sexual dysfunction.
However, Sandfort's team adds, the findings lend credence to other studies suggesting that abstinence-only education may actually increase the risk of certain health problems.
"Sexual education that is more supportive and acknowledges the diverse needs of young people might prevent the negative outcomes observed here," the researchers write.
SOURCE: American Journal of Public Health, January 2008.
ANYTHING to make Abstinence Only education a negative.....sheesh.....now I think I HAVE heard everything!
Pretty badly controlled study. Notice how they have different definitions of health risks. Hmmm, do I want to abstain longer and run the risk of not being able to get it up or not abstain and having it rot off? Well, a risk is a risk is a risk.
Perhaps a male with weak erections is likely to be more shy about being sexually involved, thus putting it off longer?
The solution is to start early without a partner. No chance of getting an STD that way. I'm just going by what others have told me, of course.
Pure BS. Not worth a whole lot of ink … or keystrokes.
LOL.....nice of those “others” to be so honest with you!
I thought I was just about the perfect age when I started, but the girl’s parents did not share that opinion.
AH...puzzle solved...another gay guy who wants to justify having sex with young boys...I should have known..
HAHAHAHAHA!
Most of the time they try to convince us that abstinence-only doesn't actually produce sexual activity reductions. Now they are trying to claim that given that abstinence actually does work, it is *still* a bad idea. Bah...can't have it both ways.
The tipping point in sex usually occurs at the maximum tippling point...
So, its real clear that Dr. Sandfort is a sex pervert who supports sexual perversion and makes his living lying to people, preaching to them his sick message that sex perversion is a good thing.
Does that mean I’m at a loss because I haven’t lost it yet and I’m 22?
let me see if I understand this...you have to pick just the right age... not too young, not too old, to avoid this?
That’s what I mean by poorly controlled. And they’re talking “average” age. What if the “average” was 25-27? Since the average age is the expression in behavior of general societal beliefs and expectations of behavior, how does such a non-biological set-point just happen, in this case, to be classed as a sexually “healthy” peak sloping away to either side into “risk”? What they should have done is to look at it in terms of incidence of STDs and unmarried pregnancy: how does that correlate with age of inception of regular, sustained, sexual activity? Another interesting thing to see would be correlations between onset of sexual activity and engaging in other risky behavior such as tobacco, drug, and alcohol use. Another one would be to develop a life satisfaction scale to measure differences in middle age between those who chose to wait versus those that thought they just couldn’t wait (taking into account, of course, the increased mortality from STDs for the non-waiters).
Sounds like *first hand* information to me ;-)
Which carries its own health risks.
;-)
from the same idiots who think that everything except tofu causes cancer.
Not at all...
...but it does explain your screen name ;-)
I got it from an Iron Maiden song :-p
But I will agree that some of them were wasted.
It’s not the cause of globle warming?????
I have no idea if this is true or not, but historically, people did marry and have children much younger than they do now.
So maybe delaying marriage for “finding yourself” in your 20’s or whatever people do isn’t the great thing it seems to be.
Early and often...
Now there’s a poster child for maintaining chastity. Britney Spears as Colonel Kurtz...
“The horror, the horror...”
Nope, it's bush's fault (snort...chuckle...)
CC
“...he was Chairman of the Interfaculty Department of Lesbian and Gay Studies...”
We are doomed!
yea, but they didn’t iive all that long either.
Oh, please! Waiting until you're 22 or 24 will scar you for life? Somehow I don't think so. Now if someone were having sex for the first time at age 50, I could see how that could create some problems, but not in their early or even late 20's!
Sounds like the abstinence only programs were doing a good thing if they kept young teens from getting involved in sex. They're saving their lives, or at the least, their health, by helping them to avoid STD's which can cause no end of physical problems.
>>Does that mean I’m at a loss because I haven’t lost it yet and I’m 22?>>
I’m just going to tell you that there is no scientific basis behind that statement. None whatsoever.
This is obviously Bush’s fault.
There are other factors it might be a good idea to control for. Losing one’s virginity at 18 in the back of a ‘57 Chevy is rather a different matter from losing it at the same age in a three-day multi-species booze-and-cocaine orgy in San Francisco. At least I think it is. I never owned a ‘57 Chevy.
Rush led off his broadcast today with this agenda driven scientific study.
The Sex Positive Agenda seeks to see everyone sexually active at every age. Condoms in school was never about stopping disease or pregnancy, it was about conceding the issue of IF teens should be having sex and shifting it to WHEN...
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping lists.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
I’m pinging one of your threads, I’m pretty sure this is a first. :-)
Most of the difference in life spans was cuz of higher infant mortality rates. I have ancestors that lived over 100 years in the 16th & 17th centuries.
We can see who did the study. It’s obvious he promotes perverted sexual behaviors. While he has to admit abstinence is effective, he ultimately still supports the sex postive agenda. Sadly, there could be some person reading this study at 22 who will go out and pick someone up to have sex with so they don’t have sexual “problems” later in life. Abstinence and waiting till marriage are the surefire ways of preventing STDs and pregnancy, regardless if one is a teen or adult.
Sex IS an emotional, cognitive, and interpersonal skill!
But I will agree that some of them were wasted.
I can relate to that.(Great song, btw)
It’s true, I once knew a guy who was a 30 year old virgin. One day he just exploded. :)
Was he a drummer?
Correlation isn't causation, and the cause-effect relationship here seems particularly questionable. Could be:
I would test for C.
“And, here is Mr. Sandfort’s bio.....”
Ahem. Clearly the good doctor has a predilection for a particular “niche.” No doubt excelling in “N of 1” studies.
Yes, I’ll be catching the song live next year. *thumbs up*
I wish I could but I’m broke.
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.