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.”
It was very hard on our son though growing up with divorced parents.
It is interesting, though, that my son joined the denomination of my second husband and me. He as been faithful in the gospel, and now, in his forties, has a beautiful wife and family of 6 children. It is a joy to visit them.
But on this thread a 10 is the limit.
A very basic mistake, makes my molars hurt.
Eh? This is a MPS (Multiple pH Scale) thread...
If you ban porn only outlaws will have porn.
Merry Christmas.
and thanks
we have complicated up stuff that is at our core and doesn’t need to be so self examined over and over
Historically, lesbianism was not as destructive of the social order as male homosexuality. For the most part, a woman had to have a man supporting her, and needed to keep him sexually satisfied in order for that support to continue. If she had lesbian affairs on the side, it was less destructive of the marriage than if she had hetero affairs on the side.
Here in Minnesota we think of Lye at Christmas all the time.
You know, lutefisk...?
Cheers!
Cheers!
So the first amendment only protects the kinds of free speech that you approve of? Gee, I wish they had written that into the Constitution.
It's about like doing a survey of the anti-socials in prisons about tatoos and body piercings (oops the black rappers and gang bangers ARE those anti-socials influencing society today!)
Merry Christmas.
“Show me again how these two statements are so different?”
I will try.
What PB said was this: “It’s also the reason why men like watching porn about lesbians. One naked girl is good, two naked girls are better.”
What you said was this: “It’s funny; if they’re two hot young women with lots of hair and a fine set of haunches, men are more than happy to watch them kiss.”
PB’s comment does not show malice or scorn for men. Yours does. It seems to me, therefore, that PB’s comment leaves room for acknowledgement of men who do not watch porn at all. Yours does not.
His remark explains why men would like to watch porn about lesbians. Your remark is a shot at men.
When I first read your remark, I thought that it left no room for exceptions. You demonstrated this to be the case by arguing in subsequent notes that responses on this thread demonstrate that men—all men—like to watch porn, and porn about lesbians in particular.
All you had to say was, “Okay, it’s not all men.” Or you could have ignored me.
Instead, when I told you that you were painting with too broad a brush, you replied, “Oh yeah? Take a look at the responses.” That is clearly a denial that applying your remarks to all men is painting with too broad a brush. In sum, it is an assertion that your remark does indeed apply to all men.
Then you tried to make trouble between PB and me, which I find puzzling. I know that some men like to watch porn, and porn about lesbians in particular. I’m sure he knows that some men do not watch porn. I don’t really see what you expected the argument to be.
Perhaps it does come as a surprise to you, but there are many men who do not consume porn in any form.
I hope we can drop this petty little squabble now.
So you gave up the swinging but not the porn, eh?
If the Founders of this country considered the First Amendment did not protect obscenity, and neither did Constitutional scholars, until almost 200 years, that’s good enough for me.
The Constitution also doesn’t mention abortion.
Oh, and the Constitution doesn’t mention a host of other issues. Your “argument” is childish and irrelevant.
NOW we can drop it.
“No, I’m just trying to prove a point.”
The only point you proved is that you are not much of a manipulator.
“More than once a Freeper who didn’t like my views has started in on me with taunts about PMS and how I should go bake cookies like a good little woman. Even within the last 24 hours.”
How about a link to that?
“Lame. Why didn’t you just say “If a woman says it, it makes me mad.” Because that would have been the truth.”
Sorry you weren’t able to follow the argument.
“And I wasn’t trying to make trouble because I knew 100% that you would not say a word to him. I knew it. Because I’ve observed you on here for years.”
Oh, now we’re fibbing. Tsk, tsk.
If that were true, you would have seen me lock horns with other men on countless occasions.
You complain about men treating you differently because you’re a woman, but you don’t hesitate for a second to stoop to attacking a man’s courage, and therefore his masculinity (Or at least trying to, albeit so transparently that it has no effect).
That nonsense may have worked back in Junior High School, but most of us have moved on. One might wonder if it isn’t that sort of behavior that elicits the “cookies” remarks.
I had to look that one up
Sorry I did
egads !!!
Not really either. Just a small celebration of liberty (whatever that means these days). But thank you for your condolences.
Cheers!
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.