Survey finds 10 partners before marriage 'normal'

Drudge ^ | 10th December 2001 | Ananova

[Don Myers]

Survey finds 10 partners before marriage 'normal'

The majority of young people think it is normal for a person to have at least 10 sexual partners before marriage.

A survey has also found that three in 10 believe it is acceptable for a girl to lose her virginity before the age of 15.

Research carried out by Brook, the youth sex advisory service, says there is a "cultural change" in young people's attitudes towards sex.

Some 64% of men and 54% of women agreed that it was acceptable for a person to sleep with more than 10 partners before getting married.

But the survey, which questioned people aged 17 to 25, also showed that they wanted more information about sex and contraception.

Men admitted to getting most of their knowledge about contraception from TV and magazines, while women learned the most from magazines and their mothers.

Half of all the young women surveyed said they wished that teachers had supplied them with more information about preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

Brook chief executive Jan Barlow said: "Young people have an increasing number of sexual partners and they are saying that's OK.

"But at the same time they don't have the information and access to services that they need.

"Young people must seek out advice and information in order to make their choices and to understand how to protect themselves both against pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases."

[NeoCaveman]

I mentioned that life sucks lately.... right?

IT could be worse, you could be some of the people on this thread.

Thank you maxwell for pinging me to this thread, I think I'm allowed to skip Church this Sunday, now.

[victim soul]

Checked out the source of this propaganda and here's what I found:

Welcome to Brook On-Line, This website was established in 2000 to help publicise the work of Brook.

http://www.brook.org.uk/index2.htm

Brook provides free, confidential sex advice and contraception to all young people. We welcome everybody, and we are totally confidential. That means we wont tell anyone about your visit, unless you ask us to.

The first Brook Centre was set up in 1964 by the late Helen Brook to provide services for young, unmarried people who couldn't get contraception from existing services.

Brook is a registered charity and company limited by guarantee offering young people under 25, free, confidential, sex advice and contraception. There are eighteen Centres that Brook has established throughout the UK.

Brook Central is based in London and co-ordinates and supports the work of the Centres and provides an information service for young people, professionals and parents. It is also the development agency for the all the Brook Centres, establishing new services at the request of health authorities.

Brook Publications produces sex and relationship education resources that help young people make informed choices.

[victim soul]

Now of course coming from a group that sells products relating to underage kids to promote these sexual activities wouldn't sway the data. Recent stories have been reported here in the States that college girls who are involved in "hooking up" or back in the old days called one night stands -- can't figure out why they haven't met Mr. Right. I think a good straight girl talk from their Grandmothers might help these girls get their act together. grrrrr

[Don Myers]

"I think a good straight girl talk from their Grandmothers might help these girls get their act together. grrrrr"

Do you think they would listen? I suspect their habits are already in full vogue.

[Don Myers]

It sounds as though these people would have the straight information on the sex habits of the young people.

[victim soul]

I THINK YOU MIGHT BE A LITTLE NAIVE. They are waging a war on changing the culture and they are grabbing our kids right under our noses but seeling them the confidentiality bit.

Why is it that the latest smoking study with teens say PARENTS are the most influential people in their kids becoming smokers. If that is true PARENTS also are the most influential people in their teens' lives and should be encouraging them to stay away from sexual activity until they are married.

Smoking may cause a long term harm eventually, but STD's cause immediate as well as life long harm never mind broken hearts and and broken unborn babies.

[Skywalk]

Especially if she retains the feminine approach(indeed inevitability oft-times) of combining sex and emotion, then there's a significant shot at her being damaged.

The question might be asked: What is preferable, a woman who compartmentalizes well, or one who has not, but has a similar history??

I am not including in the discussion any women/men who've moved beyond their past, and demonstrate this through their actions.

[Skywalk]

Economist, I would agree that any of us would prefer a wife that stayed because she wanted to, but that is not really the issue here(we seem to have strayed, anyway.)

It is clear from today's society, that it really isn't that women are just leaving marriages that decades ago would have been inescapable. After all, divorce DID exist in the past. Instead, the more obvious reasons are shifts in the cultural attitudes towards marriage and divorce. Many people stay together while others do not, facing nearly the same circumstances. A marriage must start with an assumption of permanence, if a permanent marriage is to actually develop. As an economist, you must know the moral hazard argument, so I won't get into that, except to say that as attitudes change, destructive behavior that often leads to unhappiness and shattered lives can still be viewed as "acceptable"(ie illegitimate births.)

Have you read Sowell's Vision of the Anointed? I'd highly recommend it, it's simple and straightforward. In it, he makes the case that sex education actually contributed to higher rates of teen pregnancy, disease and activity. Not insignificant is the statement by one of the organizations responsible for federal programs on sex ed, that the "primary goal was to change and promote healthy attitudes toward sex." Of course, one can make the case that the situation that befalls us now, is not healthy at all.

Brief personal note:I am agnostic, not a virgin, not married, and not promoting abstinence until marriage as such.

[John O]

John O.->"They CHOOSE not to date. Therefore they are virgins by choice"

You->What if they wanted to date? Would you LET them? It doesn't sound like it

What part of "THEY CHOOSE" do you find hard to understand?

GSA(P)

[John O]

I stand corrected. I should have said minimal sexual distractions instead of no. While it is true that teen boys do tend to think of sex a lot, that can be reduced by removing sex as a possibility at all.

We live in an over sexualized culture, by reducing the sexual aspect of it you can reduce the distraction

GSA(P)

[John O]

You're welcome. Glad to be of service.

GSA(P)

[John O]

This requires some one-on-one time, and I believe it should apply to sex as well.

Everything you need to know about another person you can learn in a group or non-sexual setting. one on one doesn't require isolation from everyone else. (haven't you ever had a conversation with someone at a ballgame or in a bar?)

GSA(P)

[John O]

I went out with a bunch of kids in groups throughout high school, and that's all it was, a big sexual distraction. Wondering how sex would be with this girl or that girl. It certainly wasn't for the enlightening conversation. :)

I'm sorry, you missed the best part of your youth.

GSA(P)

[John O]

It (dating) is easier on everyone in the long run and builds marriages that are far more likely to weather the storms.

My recent experience and observations show otherwise. Kids who didn't date but got to know each other in a group or non-dating situation wind up with better - less effort- marriages.

Thinking way back to my dating years, I know of only one person I dated who actually got to know me (my wife and this is mostly due to my salvation experience very early in our time together). The rest of them just got to know whoever it was that they would let in their pants.

I expect that dating for most people is just one lie after another, trying to impress this girl or guy. Then they get married and their spouse finds they were sold a bill of goods. I've seen it happen time and time again. How many of you know of a woman (or man) who got married and then put on a bunch of weight? While dating she kept herself thin to impress her boyfriend but once married her real habits came through. I think the husband would have been better off hanging around with people who weren't trying to impress him so he could find out who they really were.

GSA(P)

[John O]

Actually, I think that this whole `Jesus has to be a partner in your marriage' thing limits intimacy between a couple, rather than enriching the relationship

Dont knock it till you've tried it. I am able to be far MORE intimate with my wife because Jesus is in our marriage.

GSA(P)

[John O]

Absurd. Absurd and condescending.

Why?

GSA(P)

[John O]

A man and woman who love each other will be sexually compatible unless there is some physical problem with one or both of them. And if that's the case, it most likely will not matter to the other, because the love part is more important than the sex part.

Excellent! clear and right to the point. (far better than my feeble efforts to get this across)

Now, will they pay attention or just ignore it?

GSA(P)

[Cu Roi]

Everything you need to know about another person you can learn in a group or non-sexual setting. one on one doesn't require isolation from everyone else. (haven't you ever had a conversation with someone at a ballgame or in a bar?)

You can have a conversation with another individual within the setting of a larger group, but you may not completely get to know someone in that setting. Larger groups exhibit a stronger peer pressure influence, and this is especially true in a church group or other religious setting.

I believe that a group strong enough to limit sexual activity between its members will also constrain conversations. I want to learn all of a person's beliefs, faults, etc., independent of what their friends, parents, and other people in the church think.

Another thing is that some people are really good ``on stage'' but are not very good one on one. On the other extreme, there was one girl that I knew in the context of a group, but would barely talk to me while others were around. But when I encountered her individually, she would really open up and could talk about all kinds of things. It was only then that I learned that there was some attraction there and she was just scared that someone might notice when the others were around.

[Gumption County]

Especially if she retains the feminine approach(indeed inevitability oft-times) of combining sex and emotion, then there's a significant shot at her being damaged.

The question might be asked: What is preferable, a woman who compartmentalizes well, or one who has not, but has a similar history??

I am not including in the discussion any women/men who've moved beyond their past, and demonstrate this through their actions.

Compartmentalization - that was my second question:

If you make that assumption about a woman, that she can compartmentalize, can you assume that she is "normal", in the sense that, just as it is unusual for a man to cry after sex (show excessive emotion), it is unusual for a woman to have NO emotion attached to a sexual encounter?

My answer to that is that it is NOT normal for a woman to sever the emotional from the sexual.

So, in the context of casual sexuality, what is a guy interested in a serious, decent relationship to reasonably deduce about such a woman? There are a number of possibilities:

1. She doesn't compartmentalize well and may be carrying a fair amount of emotional baggage;
2. She compartmentalizes completely, in which case she places herself outside the normal distribution of feminine behavior vis-a-vis sex (and quite likely other areas of feminine behavior);
3. She handles only as much casual sex as she can effectively compartmentalize, knowing well her own limits, and limits the damage.

The relationship-centered man may conclude: woman #1 will saddle me with all the crap heaped on her by other jerks; woman #2 may never sincerely attach herself to me emotionally; woman #3 sounds good but how many #1's and #2's do I have to go through before I find her?

What is a serious man, looking for a longterm relationship, to do about women 1, 2, & 3? Answer that and you'll be halfway to understanding the origin of the supposed "double standard" that attaches to male and female promiscuity.

[stuartcr]

Sorry I didn't answer this yesterday. I have to say your assumption is incorrect, as I don't consider virginity precious at any age. If a child has not reached puberty, I really don't associate virginity, or this thread even, with the child, it is automatically a no-no. Virginity is basically an intact hymen for females, and I'm not sure how you would define it in a male. My dog is a virgin, but I don't consider it's virginity precious, it's a biological thing. If we're talking about promiscuity, well, one can be promiscuous and still be a virgin. If you go back in history, you will find that, after puberty, the age that sexual relations were acceptable, has varied greatly. What I'm saying, is that the virginity part is not as important, as what the current societal mores dictate. Also, how do you know that sexual purity is precious to God? I would like to think that the reason God put the 'funny feeling' into sex, is because He wants us to enjoy our bodies, and the little time we have here on earth. I believe the guilt associated with, and the constraints we have put on sexual behavior, is a very big part of the problems we, as human beings, have experienced throughout history, which, I might add, have come almost exclusively from organised religions. More power to you though, for your beliefs.