The study is interesting yes but the timeline is way too short and doesn't cover the extent of sexual activity or when the start of it was.

Before marriage is one thing but were our grandparents giving head on the schoolbus when they were 12? Not likely.

Were they involved with multiple serial sex partners by 16? Not likely.

Had they had bi-sexual encounters or homosexual encounters as teens? Not likely.

 

Thing is that a lot of these studies have agendas to puch. this one seems to want to excuse all of todays sexual problems by saying "Look people in the 1940's did it before they were married too!" which is simplistic and misleading.

 

This study doesn't even go back to the advent of the diamond ring which only gained popular use after women lost the ability to sue fiancees who broke it off after having sex with them. They used to be entitled to compensation since they were now "damaged goods" on the marriage market. After the loss of those legal rights the gift of a monetarily valuable ring became the de facto guarantor for men.

Having one or two or even three partners before marriage in the 1940's doesn't even come close to the hedonism that reigns supreme among young adults and even teens in the modern era.

Saying that information alone is more effective is perhaps correct but also disingenous. "Safer sex" leaves all the responsibilty for mental health out of the picture. This article makes a good counter to this study.

 

"Look at how different health decisions are valued," the author advises. "When Stacey avoids fatty foods she is being health conscious. . . . When she stays away from alcohol, she is being responsible and resisting her impulses. For all these she is endorsed for keeping long-term goals in mind instead of giving in to peer pressure and immediate gratification. But if she makes a conscious decision to delay sexual activity, she's simply 'not sexually active'--given no praise or endorsement.""

 

My grandma is in her 80's and she laughs that our generation acts like sex is something new. Like we invented it. It's been going on forever. I would say that the difference is that they weren't as open about it and if a girl got "in trouble" she either got married in a big hurry or "visited relatives". It still happened though.

Having one or two or even three partners before marriage in the 1940's doesn't even come close to the hedonism that reigns supreme among young adults and even teens in the modern era.

but don't you think that maybe the "taboo" treatment of sex has at least in part, caused that?

but don't you think that maybe the "taboo" treatment of sex has at least in part, caused that?

Not even close. Promiscuity actually has a cascade effect here. In high school if only 1-5 girls in a 200 person class are "putting-out" then the other girls don't have to worry very much about their guys leaving for the promise of easy sex. Once that number creeps up to around 40 though the equation changes drastically.

Each girl then needs to tenaciously guard her male in order to keep him. The easiest guarding method? Have sex with them. Of course the backlash is when most of the class is putting out then any girl will do and special treatment or loyalty is no longer necessary. It is a very quick trip and it didn't take much slippage to bring it on.

After hundereds of years of relatively low sexual activity (without marriage at some point to the partner) we have cascaded into a situation where our kids ut like animals in a very ineffective attempt to be happy.

As the above linked article shows, the effect on girls is massive. Sexually active teen girls are twice as likely to be depressed or at risk for suicide. After all, if they think that men won't spend time with them unless their clothes are off they don't feel great about themselves.

Like we didn't know this before right?

"In high school if only 1-5 girls in a 200 person class are "putting-out" then the other girls don't have to worry very much about their guys leaving for the promise of easy sex."

Like a high school relationship matters lol.

"we have cascaded into a situation where our kids ut like animals in a very ineffective attempt to be happy"

It's a reflection of both attitudes, tolerance, freedom, and media. That and fewer hours of the day, devoted to parenting on average.

Like a high school relationship matters lol.

Hmmm apparently no mental damage is done to high school girls and boys through serial sexual relationships. They just don't "count". Who knew? Hell let loose then since nothing in high school matters.

I thought it was college that nothing mattered in...

I'll say first that I believe sex education should consist of teaching young adults everything about sex (straight facts, boring statistics, no spin) and letting them decide on their own.

I say let people have sex with whoever they want - but then they have to deal with the consequences of that. One of those consequences is pregnancy.

I could go on a long diatribe about it, but I think you get the idea - abortions pretty much divorce the consequences of sexual activity from the activity itself. That is why I chuckle at comments like this:

"What does this study say about how we treat sex in our society? When will some simply accept the fact that sex is a natural thing? It is not evil, dirty or a sin."

It's easy to say "Let's all have free sex!" when you can say "Let's not ever worry about getting pregnant!" afterwards. I think back in the day they treated sex like it had consequences, and that is why attitudes were the way they were. Now we don't, so you have this "new" way of looking at it. If you took away the push-button "problems go away" abortion, you might find attitudes start going in the other direction.

I think comments like the above put the cart before the horse - it isn't considered "bad" because religion was just trying to hurt you, the religions instituted the rules to encourage people to stop doing something that could have unwanted consequences. In modern times, the attitudes might come off as "sex is evil" or "dirty" but my guess is that this is a more modern exageration of ancient conventions that were just trying to help.

While Mom and Dad, and Grandpa and Grandma may have seemed prim and proper, in many families anyone with a little math skill will be able to tell you that the oldest Aunt or Uncle may have their birthday several weeks early relative to the old 9-month waiting period that would have been expected following the wedding anniversary.

The current generation always get these messages saying the last generation or the one before it was much more careful, and much more respectful, etc.,  the facts say otherwise.

That's all that's coming from this survey.  When I heard it talked up on the news last nite I knew almost immediately what the results were going to be.  In my own family my dad's parents had his sister approximately 7 months after their wedding anniversary.  They were married at a fairly early age (early teens).

An aunt (the baby in my dad's family) followed her parents lead, wound up barefoot and pregnant by her early teens.

Her daughter (my cousing) was pregnant as a Sophomore (or perhaps it was Junior year?) in high school.

Anyone thinking that the earlier generations were so conservative and never "did it" before marriage is fooling themselves.  There are plenty of skeletons in every closet and the survey results talked about in the article above just confirm that we're finally learning the truth that was there all along and which we just ignored or pretended hadn't happened.

"Hmmm apparently no mental damage is done to high school girls and boys through serial sexual relationships. They just don't "count". Who knew? Hell let loose then since nothing in high school matters."

What mental damage is done to high school girls and boys through serial sexual relationships?

By the way before you go quoting me, and changing what I said, for the record, it was...

"Like a high school relationship matters lol. " No sexual context in that at all. The report also doesn't focus on sexual relationships in highschool or even a particular age group except to say that by the middle age most Americans have had pre-marital sex, regardless of the age with which they married, or first had sex. This was what the study evidently showed...

"According to the group's analysis, 99 percent of the respondents had had sex by age 44, and 95 percent had done so before marriage."

Not specific time periods or charting of ages, certainly most of us are out of highschool by the age of 44. Agree?

During my highschool years, I was informed that 90% of relationships, you know boy-friend girl-friend boy-boy girl-girl sexual or otherwise did not survive college or even beyond high school and college into adulthood. Another not necessarily "fact" but in my own personal observation of my high school class, this is quiet true. Again I'll state, high school relationships do not matter, in the long term, because they do no survive the long term.

What damage and mental or otherwise would u be talking about?