Virginity Rising
Shocking news: Virginity is on the rise in America.
The source is sober, academic, practically irrefutable: the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Its latest analysis of the sex lives of Americans age 15 to 44 includes a startling finding: Virginity is increasing among teens and young adults in the U.S.
Compared with data from the 2002 (National Survey of Family Growth), a higher percentage of males and females 15-24 in 2006-2008 have had no sexual contact with another person. In 2002, 22 percent of young men and women 15-24 had never had any sexual contact with another person, and in 2006-2008, those figures were 27 percent for males and 29 percent for females.
The survey was was drawn from in-person interviews with a national sample of 13,495 males and females. The data were collected using audio computer-assisted self-interviewing, or ACASI, in which the respondent enters his or her own answers into the computer — known to be the most accurate way of collecting sensitive data.
The response rate for the 2006-2008 NSFG was 75 percent — very high for this kind of data.
The increase in virginity is not just “technical virginity,” mind you. These are young adults who say they have had no sexual contact of any kind: no intercourse, no oral sex, no anal sex. (Presumably, a lot of them have, however, kissed and hugged!)
I’m an old hand at stats. But even I was surprised by this finding buried in the report (Table 3): 32 percent of currently married women under the age of 45 say they have had only one sex partner in their life.
Slightly more than 50 million Americans are married. If the figures for those under 45 mirror the national figures (a conservative assumption), that means the number of women who have never had sex with anyone but their husbands is at least 8 million.
The same data show that less than 2 percent of adults under the age of 45 self-identify as “homosexual, gay or lesbians” (more if you count bisexuals, of course). If the data are accurate, they suggest there are at least as many adult women under the age of 45 who have never had sex with anyone but their husband as there are gay people in the general population.
But unlike gay folks, these women are invisible, derided, ridiculed or treated as a virtual impossibility.
Why is this good news? When young women refuse to engage in promiscuous sex, they protect themselves, our culture and our next generation of children from a variety of concrete harms — from sexually transmitted diseases to infant mortality, welfare dependence, school failure and juvenile delinquency associated with increased risk of young, out-of-wedlock births. HIV alone costs $20,000 per year per person who contracts it, according to the Rand Corp.
While the majority of people who contract new cases of AIDS are gay, a big chunk of new HIV cases are heterosexuals — and those most at risk are women who engage in anal sex with men.
This is interesting, and encouraging as well. I’d like to comment on a few specific statements from the article:
This doesn’t seem to be particularly relevant to the subject matter of the article, in my opinion.
This is something that is very hard for me to understand, especially from a man’s perspective (since I’m a man), though I can’t see how it makes sense from a woman’s perspective either. I just can’t (and frankly don’t want to) get my mind around the kind of thought process that makes this act seem appealing in any way, for either party. Some may call me a prude, or close-minded, or even intolerant, but when you think about the biological function that is performed by that particular part of the body . . . enough said.
I would be very interested to know what the causes are for this trend (assuming that it is real and not a flaw in the study data). I would have to say that both of the causes that she mentions are plausible, as well as perhaps some level of rebellion against the sexual permissiveness that is widely accepted in our culture. Unfortunately though, I think that her pessimistic idea may be the most plausible explanation.
Absolutely agreed.
“But unlike gay folks, these women are invisible, derided, ridiculed or treated as a virtual impossibility.”
Like Morse, Gallagher has upped the “nasty” factor, perhaps betraying a level of frustration as the tide turns against marriage discrimination.
Many gay people, in fact, ARE invisible, derided, ridiculed and treated as if they are freaks of nature. Where you been, Maggie? That’s why the federal government had to expand hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation!
I have never heard of a woman being derided for only having had sex with her husband. Could you point me to something online that supports this contention?
This is a perfect example of the religious right sticking their head in the sand and ignoring reality in favor of their particular brand of morality. That doesn’t actually solve any problem. Maggie’s article intentionally omits the obvious – that most women will/do engage in sex and that they, and those who engage in promiscuous sex, don’t deserve HIV or other STD’s/I’s as their punishment. They also shouldn’t be bringing children into the world that they’re not prepared to raise (single motherhood is one of Maggie’s issues of concern after all). I searched the article – the words ‘condom’, ‘contraception’ and ‘prevention’ do not appear once. It’s both irresponsible and hypocritical to feign concern for the health and well being of women without addressing the issue of safer sex. Doing so ignores the vast majority of women who are, in fact, sexually active. But we all know that Catholic doctrine has and continues to be placed above what’s actually in the best interest of people, particularly women and children, so why am I surprised by Maggie’s position?
Ken, do some research into Catholic doctrine before you make such ignorant claims about the Catholic Church not wanting what’s in the best interest of women and children. It’s quite the opposite.
@Sean
Can’t remember the name of the Christmas show (on ABC Family) in which this scene appeared (seems like it was two years ago), but the premise of the story surrounded a girl who did not want to go home for Christmas without a boyfriend. So she kidnapped one.
Rediculous premise, but in one scene the girl’s mother dejectedly folds clothes from a basket while saying to her daughter, “Do you know that I have NEVER slept with ANYONE but your father? Isn’t that PATHETIC?” Her daughter looks bewildered and doesn’t answer. She says, “Oh of course you don’t! You can boink anyone you want.”
Pathetic swipe. Just one example that comes to mind.
@Sean My father derided me for having been married to the same woman for half my life (well, more than half now – 35 years). He had three wives and many, many affairs.
“But unlike gay folks, these women are invisible, derided, ridiculed or treated as a virtual impossibility.”
Thats bull. Plenty of feminist websites acknowledge and discuss HIV transmission rates, prevention and help, along with other STI information. The discussion is out there, the author merely isn’t looking.
As for virginity going up, I’m sure there’s a myriad of reasons, however I would be surprised if the main one was abstinence-only ed. (And someone whose an old hand at stats would also assume the majority of virgins were in the 15-18 year old range, and that most of them will still end up having some kind of sexual contact before marriage, but eh, any news is good news sometimes.)
And not that I want to get into an anal sex discussion, but if you do it right it doesn’t hurt and feels good. If you do it wrong it hurts, just like regular intercourse. Also, it’s not for everyone, whatever floats your boat and what not.
The use of the anus for entry vs exit damages the structure. Just because something is pleasurable, that doesn’t make it right. The body was not designed for such activities and it is abuse of the human design.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
Done properly, there is little to no harm done to the anus. Yes, anal sex carries a higher risk of tears, thus a higher risk of STI transmission. Using plenty of lube and condoms is recommended by all doctors and health professionals.
Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean it’s wrong, and it doesn’t mean you have to bring it up every single time.
It is intrinsically wrong – biology 101!
I cannot imagine anyone in their right mind wanting to engage in anal sex. It is painful and dangerous for the recipient. It creates a direct avenue for disease into the blood stream from the multiple tears in the anal canal. Anyone with respect for their body would not engage.
So, Nerdygirl, why do you think folks get HIV/AIDS? Oh and please don’t tell me that you don’t get it that way, besides which, it’s kinda not designed for that but your vagina is….
@P. Edward Murray
HIV infects the body via the bloodstream. It can enter through cuts or lacerations and contaminated needles. Anal sex does have a higher risk of tearing then vaginal sex, and most transmissions of HIV comes from anal sex but that is not the only way and suggesting it is is moronic. But, there’s this funny little thing called “lubrication”, and these little sock thingies that guys can put on their penises called “condoms” when used in conjunction, even having intercourse with an infected person, while using condoms and lube, chances of contracting HIV are significantly (like, SRSLY) lowered.
Hence why I keep saying “Done properly”.
And what exactly does the second part of your run-on sentence mean?
“, besides which, it’s kinda not designed for that but your vagina is….”
I think you’re trying to insinuate that people who have only vaginal sex don’t contract HIV, and you would be wrong.
A man and a woman who never have sex with anyone but each other have absolutely no risk of HIV.
And they don’t need those pesky “sock thingies” either.
That’s like saying if it’s “done properly” there’s nothing wrong with having sex with an animal. You can never “properly” do anal sex – it is against the design of the human body.
@Deb
Unless one of them is a drug junkie, in which case, it would have just been better to have had promiscuous sex.
And to each their own, waiting for marriage is a great, viable option, but it’s not for everyone. And in a modern, free society people have those kind of options.
While yes, married people who have only been with each other can have anal sex without pesky sock thingies, some married people still wear pesky sock thingies strictly for birth control reasons, and they have every right to do so.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
Animals can’t consent. Therefore, one can not “properly” have sex with an animal. Your example is invalid.
Look, nothing short of God punching you in the face and saying to take it like a man is going to change your mind on this issue, and nothing short of God punching in you in the face and saying to back up your claims is going to make you say anything besides “it’s against the design of the human body” So, can we just drop this and not have this argument again?
By what moral standard do you require an animal to consent? Does an animal consent to be a pet? Does an animal consent to be put in a zoo? Does an animal consent to be eaten?
My argument is indeed valid. It isn’t an issue of consent, it is an issue of misuse of the human body.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
Now this is a much better form of argument (I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically) because you aren’t simply asserting something as a fact and saying that what the other person’s view is simply wrong. Here you seem to be advancing an argument, trying to persuade instead of bludgeon.
Incidentally, I think animals consent all the time, they even consent to be eaten. They try and run away from predators, they fight and resist if they can, but when a predator gets them, they don’t rebel against God, they don’t withhold their consent.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
Well, not to get into an animal rights debate but generally speaking, outside of things like killing animals for food, it is “wrong” to hurt them. In some cases having an animal as a pet would hurt them, i.e. a wild animal taken from it’s habitat and stuffed in a tiny cage would be wrong (I prefer zoo animals to be born from current zoo stock or rescued animals that couldn’t survive/needed help, but usually this is subject that deserves to be treated with more thought and research then I am willing to spend now) , a tourist taking a baby coyote or other creature from its habitat would be wrong, or for that matter the general treatment of animals that are raised for slaughter is wrong (to the point where death seems a kindness), domesticated animals though can not always adapt or survive if they are not pets, it would be cruelty to release them to the wild or abandon them. As far as consenting to food goes, well, no, but they aren’t around after the eating takes place, death is the end. Now, we as a society punish certain instances of killing animals, poaching for example, killing domesticated animals/pets etc. We do not punish proper hunting (also I’d like to point out, hunting is very useful for population control, because it is much better for an animal to have a quick death and be used to feed a family then for it to starve to death) or the slaughter of farm animals (again, there’s a proper way and protocol.)
Now then, having sex with an animal is (especially if it’s smaller then a human) is going to hurt the animal, especially if it’s penetrative. Unless the animal dies of wounds sustained, they have to continue living. Now maybe the animal is cool with having sex with people, but as we can’t effectively communicate with animals, animals can not legally consent. If we define sex as consensual intercourse (and we do), then intercourse without consent must be rape. Silence is not a form of consent, and we have acknowledged that legally animals cannot consent. Thus sex with an animal must be rape, and as such illegal.
And no, you were trying to pull a Santorum, by insinuating that anal sex is synonymous with bestiality. What you are doing is trying to smear my argument, that anal sex is not “wrong”, can be done safely and that most of what is represented on this site concerning anal sex is not medical fact but mere opinion. Your last reply is a dodge. You either don’t have the information or ability to back up the against the design of the human body stick, but you can’t just let it drop either.
Most bestiality is with animals of sufficient size not to be injured.
Animals do not have rights – rights are for humans.
And yes, anal sex is very much the same as bestiality because both misuse human sexuality and both abuse the design of the human body. Biology 101 says the anus is designed for the elimination of human waste, and nothing else.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
You keep saying biology 101, but you’re not backing that up with any sources.
I’m curious though, how does bestiality abuse the design of the human body?
You need “sources” to tell you what the rectum an anus are for!??!?!?!?! What they are designed for?!?!?!?!?!?!
The design of the human body is for mating with other humans, not with animals. Humans are not animals.
Proverbs 10:23: Shameful conduct is pleasure for a fool.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
No, I’m saying you should put forth medical evidence that PROVES anal sex is harmful. That PROVES anal sex is unnatural. You as a habit, put forth no sources. You just claim what you claim, and anytime anyone asks you to back up your statements, you say you don’t need to, that it should be evident.
Pomposity only helps an argument if you have the facts to back it up. Otherwise you just end up sounding like a blowhard.
Where is YOUR claim that it is NOT against human design? The evidence I gave was simple biology; look at the design of the human body; the vagina is designed for use in sexual intercourse, not the anus. The anus is designed for the elimination of waste. Medical evidence demonstrates the stretching of the anus to the point the sphincter muscles no longer work properly; tears in the anus can cause all sorts of harm, which you know full well. The anus is full of germs!
I have not merely asserted, I keep pointing to biology! Yet you don’t adhere to your own standards – where is your evidence that it is NOT against human design; where is your evidence that it is not medically harmful? All you do is make assertions.
http://gayteens.about.com/od/safesexstds/f/Anal_Sex-risks.htm
http://www.puckerup.com/anal_advisor/health_concerns/loss_of_bowel_control
http://www.hemorrhoidshemroids.com/anal-sex-and-hemroids-hemorrhoids.html
And from the last site in particular, I’d like to point out this paragraph, that is presented in bold:
“Anal sex hemorrhoids and anorectal damage usually happen due to badly performed anal sex. There are no studies that indicate any anal damage at all when the practice is done correctly, but most people who do it don’t take the time to learn enough about safety.”
I have consistently spoken about anal sex as something that needs to be done properly. At this point, it’s on YOU to prove that even anal sex done properly carries a significant risk of damage or infection.
I always love the word “Properly” in context with this. There is no such thing as “properly” when it comes to anal sex – it is unnatural and against the design of the human body. And even “properly” can’t be always assured. And I see you provided “evidence” only from sites which promote this type of sexual behavior – real unbiased, aren’t they?
@Glenn E. Chatfield
Oh, and you can actually show a source that enforces your view thats not biased?
There is always a “proper” way. “Proper” doesn’t mean fool-proof. Also, the hemorrhoids site, if you bothered to read it, was decidedly neutral.
You still haven’t disproven the point that it is against the design of the human body, against the design of human sexuality.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
And you are still dodging.
The sphincter is a muscle that can be controlled. It can be exercised. If God found anal sex so reprehensible, why would he allow control in the loosening of it, or allow exercises that can strengthen and tighten it? Why would he make male prostate stimulation so pleasurable, heck, why make anal sex so pleasurable?
And finally, against human sexuality? Human sexuality NATURALLY tends towards promiscuity/multiple partners. Why is it cool to go against nature for monogamy, but not anal?
nerdygirl, what is the point of those questions, precisely? Do you truly believe that anal sexual behavior is morally neutral? Truly?
If so, then, you do not believe that it is moral behavior.
You can’t have it every which way on this.
I’m not dodging anything. I am making a truth claim that the use of the anus for sexual relations is against the design of the human body. God’s design of the sphincter muscle was for controlling the waste. What is pleasurable is not always right. And “nature” does NOT lead to promiscuity/multiple partners. God designed the natural order of human sexuality for one man/one woman. It is mankind who abuses that creative design, which is why promiscuity leads to diseases and other medical issues.
You don’t have a moral leg to stand on – your morality is just your opinion.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
If God intended one man and one woman, why did King David have concubines? Can you point to a specific verse in the bible that says ONE man and ONE woman?
You are making a claim, and you are not backing it up. If it were true, finding a source to back it up should be easy.
I’m of the feeling your morality is just as much opinion based as mine is, but you’d never admit that.
Gen. 2:22-24. God made ONE woman for man and declared the TWO shall become one. Man abused what God set up. God permits man’s choices, which is why David, Abraham, Solomon, etc had more than one wife. I did an article about God’s view of polygamy based on what Scripture tells us:
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/search/label/Marriage
As for my morality, it is based on God’s law. Your morality is based on your own opinion. When people rely on personal opinions for morality, then anything goes and you cannot logically deny another person’s morality.
@Glenn: “As for my morality, it is based on God’s law. Your morality is based on your own opinion.”
Glenn, we’ve been through this before: Your morality is not based on God’s Law, but on your opinion of God’s law.