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.
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.