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.”
Cheers!
...oh, and Merry Christmas!
Exactly how do you think we all got here?
Monogamism is a hopeful wish of the female of our species..
It is an admirable idea and goal, but unattainable by and large.
So how many other men are you sharing YOUR wife with tonight?
Cheers! ...oh, and Merry Christmas.
"...two hundred female tongues, released as though by a spring, burst into high, clamorous speech..."
Cheers! (...my ears!)
...oh, and Merry Christmas!
...oh, and Merry Christmas!
Heartbreaking.
Major LOLs!!
Interesting to consider why God didn´t bar female homosexuality in light of patriarchy´s polygamous romps, although they should have been precluded too by the singular nature of Genesis 2:24.
The taboo was created in the first place because women have a much greater natural capacity than men. That's why most cultures suppress women's sexuality and impose the duties of morality on them. We see it at an extreme in muslim societies; but our own pre-Sexual Revolution era certainly blamed the woman for any sexual missteps.
Dying laughing over here!
Thinking 'way back to a foul-mouthed, hard-drinking and narcissistic professor our college had in the 60s who hit on all the girls and who ultimately got oral cancer, this is interesting news. I had thought it was just the cigarettes.
men more often than not pursue women for sex unless she is driven to get pregnant whether she knows it or not...then katy bar the door...can't beat her off with a stick then...they will wear ya out
but I don't think women today do that so much anymore...sexual subservience to men
they see movies too and read and know what to expect
just as men today take oral sex for granted so do the women and when I was young that sort of thing was less common(not me..I read a lot..and learned and had an older woman..instructor..bless her heart)
i just think women can be voracious and expect much satisfaction and how to get there too...and a good man knows how to take her there and will enjoy that more than his own final “release”..which is after all not much compared to the “releases” women are capable of over and over and over
the truth is women may indulge men's whims given how visual we are but the real power is squarely in their hands....
God made us that way...and I feel blessed as often as possible even at my advanced age.
On group sex...some women just like it...I don't know how else to explain it...some are wild...like other peccadilloes
look how they fantasize all those romance novels...ravaged by the stranger all Minotaur strong...hell..even my old mom read that stuff...God bless her now departed soul
me personally...and I grew up in the age of quaaludes...(I'm 54) ...I never wanted to be that close to another naked man so group sex men on woman no thanks
now covered up in all the female warmth and softness and breath and supple skin...their hair... I could handle...and none of that lesbo crap..I could care less about women making out...now you're talking...I mean damn...women are such an intoxicant for us...I don't think girls can understand it...even at my age my wife can't dally by in her yoga pants without me grabbing her...or a camisole...and I used to watch my ever faithful dad the same way...even up to his death at 66...it is just our nature...we are taught responsibility for the sake of the reproduction but our nature is more ribald
alas...long married ...that blind date long ago was the most fortuitous in a lifetime of God given lucky breaks
so anyhow..here's to you ladies..long may ya’ll reign!
I don't find this surprising.
I think that men are very visual beings. They really enjoy looking at pretty women. Group sex not only give them the ability to have sex with multiple partners, it also allows them to watch, in person. Women on the other hand are typically a bit more inhibited about this. Once into the lifestyle however, they probably find that they like all of the attention and since they don't have the re-cycle issues that men do, multiple partners can be more thoroughly enjoyed. Once she get's used to three hours, 10 minutes is probably a disappointment.
In the end what you might find is that them man loses interest in multiple partners because other than variety, multiple women don't really give him that much more pleasure than one eager partner, while women might find that multiple men might just be able to take her places that a single man cannot. Male orgasms are a dime a dozen while female orgasms are much more elusive and therefore valuable. If she finds she can get there consistently with multiple partners but less so with one, she will probably be less inclined to leave the lifestyle. The man is going to get there in either case so it matters less to him.
Just my thoughs on this discussion. I could certainly be wrong.
"Two legs good, four legs better?"
Yes, I noticed that too.
I agree whole-heartedly.
No, I'm just trying to prove a point. I knew he wouldn't say anything to you.
Why should my being a guy make a difference in cyber space?
To the Left it is harmless, their agenda is a hedonistic “anything goes” lifestyle. Government funds push this agenda through medial and education entities. Even Kinsey’s group still gets state funding in Indiana.
>>>Group sex has been happening since the dawn of mankind.<<<<
As an exception, not the rule. Many studies, and just plain observation, would indicate that unlike our primate cousins, human beings tend to prefer to copulate in private.
>>>Exactly how do you think we all got here?<<<
If the orgy was a human constant, it would have been enshined culturally as the norm. It isn’t. I can’t think of a single human culture in which people copulate en masse and then produce babies. Instead, the cultures that I’m familiar with all have ceremonial marriage between two people, who are then encouraged to find a place alone and do what must be done.
>>>Monogamism is a hopeful wish of the female of our species... It is an admirable idea and goal, but unattainable by and large.<<<
Maybe, but you contradict yourself. First, you write that group sex is the norm. Then you write that females want a monogamous relationship. That’s not a consistent argument, assuming that women are taking part in the group sex. By the way, self-restraint is attainable. Sure, there are women with whom sex would be a pleasant adventure... and then there’s my self-restraint. And any affair would take place, again, in private, with just the two of us, not in a room with 30 others. And if my wife found out, she wouldn’t shrug her shoulders and say, “Well, monogamy isn’t normal, and who were the other dozen people involved?”
My gut feeling is that the article itself is research porn -you know, an article on the titillating subject of sexually active teenagers designed to inflame emotions. I put this article in the same category as the myth of the rainbow-colored lipstick blow jobs of the 1990s. Sort of like sexually provacative phrenology.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner!! You nailed (pardon the pun) the problem with this bogus study. I hope it didn’t cost us as taxpayers too much research grant money to pay the grant junky scientists to produce it.
They should do it for free or a discount. It’s at least more entertaining than studying 5th hand smoke or gorebull warming and carbon dioxide.
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.