Sex study provides more realistic picture of virginity

I'm not even remotely surprised.

montrealgazette.com/life/study+provides+more+realistic+picture+virginity/3128953/story.html

Fewer than one in 10 Canadian brides-to-be believes in abstaining from sex until their wedding night, despite a "save yourself" drumbeat that in recent years has reverberated through everything from school programs to pop-culture phenols such as Twilight and Glee.

The American reproductive health think-tank investigated the activities of some 38,000 people -33,000 of them women -and found more than nine in 10 had engaged in premarital sex by age 44.

The behavioural research dovetails with a nationwide attitudinal survey of 1,003 Canadians that, in 2009, found 87 per cent of people have no qualms about sexual relations between unmarried partners.

must be where they got the plot for "40 yr old Virgin".

any study reporting statistics like this should for honesty's sake report side by side statistics on the social effects of the alleged behavior--out of wedlock pregnancies and the social fall out from children raised without fathers, divorce rates with ditto, abortion rates, abuse of women and children, porn industry and crimes associated with it, sex trade and sex slavery etc.

Who IS surprised?

Did you think catholics on a catholic forum would be surprised to find out that humans are innately vulnerable to temptation and require a Savior?

I'm highly amused by the assertion that there has been a "drumbeat" on for saving one's virginity for marriage going on. If that is so, it is awfully hard to hear amongst the raging death metal concert going on in favor of promiscuity!

I love the headline. The study reported claims talks about sexual behavior which the claim is all but universal outside marriage, yet say it is a picture of virginity, which they do not even acknowledge exists any more for adults. If they wanted to present a more realistic picture of virginity, they would study virgins, not sexually active adults.

If those numbers are true - no wonder everyone thinks I'm a freak. Haha.

Ever notice that 'realistic' is almost always code-speak for "secular", or 'non-religious'?

The human 'animal' has always had baser urges as well as 'higher' ones. Of course, people used to teach and think that humanity could 'rise above' the base urges and aspire to the higher ones, and that the more we tried to achieve our higher urges, the better and more 'human' we would be.

However lately it seems that we are being told to accede to our 'lower urges', to 'give in', and that in doing so we are being more 'realistic', more 'true' to human nature, not so 'repressed' or 'unrealistic' or 'rigid and dogmatic'.

Well, more of the type of humanity to which I aspire (Christ, Socrates, St. Thomas Aquinas, and even the Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi) urged us to be more 'real' in striving to reach for our 'higher impulses' and not our 'baser' or supposedly more 'real' ones. So respectfully, I'll stick with the 'higher' level. If that makes me 'unrealistic' according to a few fallible people in 2010 arguing their unproven assertions, so be it.

'Being realistic is the most commonly traveled road to mediocrity'- Will Smith

[quote="puzzleannie, post:2, topic:201310"]
must be where they got the plot for "40 yr old Virgin".

any study reporting statistics like this should for honesty's sake report side by side statistics on the social effects of the alleged behavior--out of wedlock pregnancies and the social fall out from children raised without fathers, divorce rates with ditto, abortion rates, abuse of women and children, porn industry and crimes associated with it, sex trade and sex slavery etc.

[/quote]

puzzleannie,

**Exactly!

The old "everybody does it" argument leads us to the lemming world we live in, with 90% of our society racing toward the cliff.

It is like saying in 1800, "slavery is legal! Be realistic!"

It is still wrong & sadly, because of the "sexual revolution" pushed by the feminists, it is the women who are exploited & yet bear the brunt of the pain & suffering from broken hearts, STD's, as single mothers or worse yet, from the life long emotional aftermath of abortion!

We all too often confuse fairness & compassion with equality. Men & women are equal in dignity, but God made us different for a reason! The strengths of one compliments the weakness of the other, & vice versa, making the sum greater than it's parts.**

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

''Fewer than one in 10 Canadian brides-to-be believes in abstaining from sex until their wedding night'']

That is a disaster. There are Christians and Catholics in Canada right? Do none of them actually read the Bible and see the verses about abstaining from sex until marriage.

Do you think most people read those verses and see them as something that was only for that time when the Bible was written and is not relevant for now..?

I wonder what the divorce rate in Canada is.

We know from statistics that people who abstain from sex until marriage, have about 70% less chance of getting a divorce than couples who do not abstain before marriage. Abstinent teens do better in schools, less likely to be on welfare etc. There are enormous advantages. And spiritually of course, you will be in the right place.

[quote="Habesha, post:9, topic:201310"]

Do none of them actually read the Bible and see the verses about abstaining from sex until marriage.

[/quote]

"The Bible? Umm, like, it says not to judge people. And stuff."

"Do not judge"? You mean, then, that according to the Bible we should just wander about with our eyes and ears tightly shut, lest we somehow make a judgment?

That we are to simply sit back and accept when people do wrong? That we aren't supposed to be able to see if an action is wrong and to help people who are sinning?

How do you reconcile the 'do not judge' attitude with the teaching of the Church on 'admonishing the sinner", and 'instructing the ignorant?" If we 'can't judge', then we can't really tell people what to do, right? Because if we say that people must do X, then we are making a judgment that X is proper, and not-X is not.

It strikes me that people who are quick to bleat, "Oh do not judge people" are doing so with a false understanding of judgment and indeed of charity.

Suppose you see a woman or man who is standing in front of a huge crowd about to give a speech. . .and you notice that they have a milk moustache, strands of spinach between their teeth, or even worse, an unzipped fly. . .

Well, you know, when you come up to them (and you HAVE to do in front of that crowd, you can't get their attention any other way), even if THEY are the only ones who hear your whisper of the problem, they are going to be embarrassed. But how much MORE embarrassed they would be if you never bothered to let them know there was a problem that they COULD CORRECT.

It is a poor understanding of charity that would have a person who noticed a problem 'sit back and shut up' because they would 'embarass' the person by telling them about the problem, and would RATHER let the person go on to far worse embarassment because they did not correct the problem!

77% of Canadians are Christians and of that number, 46% are Catholics.

Despite strict rules from God and the Church governing sexual relations, it seems that 90% of Canadian women are paying no mind.

[quote="Zatzat, post:12, topic:201310"]
77% of Canadians are Christians and of that number, 46% are Catholics.

Despite strict rules from God and the Church governing sexual relations, it seems that 90% of Canadian women are paying no mind.

[/quote]

Who was claiming otherwise? What does this mean to you? Does this place a value judgement on virginity, or is it just evidence that people have become less moral in our society? Do you think that Catholics believe our society has become more moral?

[quote="Zatzat, post:12, topic:201310"]
77% of Canadians are Christians and of that number, 46% are Catholics.

Despite strict rules from God and the Church governing sexual relations, it seems that 90% of Canadian women are paying no mind.

[/quote]

And?

We are talking of a period of a few decades or so in both Canadian history and in Christian history.

As I pointed out before in other threads, suppose of those women (that 90% figure who had sex outside of marriage). . .

Suppose that 10% had sex only once outside marriage. Suppose that most of them did so under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Suppose that another 10% had sex 5 times or less outside marriage. Suppose that some at least did so under the influence of drugs or alcohol, some did so out of a misplaced belief that the man would marry them.

Suppose another 10% of these women had sex outside of marriage but they did so for reasons that they have since repudiated. Suppose they were 'conditioned' to believe that this was something that they 'should' do (for various reasons), they did so, but then realized it was wrong.

This 30% of the 90% (and it is only touching the surface) are being counted as 'equal' to whatever fraction of women have had regular and consistent 'non marital sex'.

IOW, for the purpose of the study, the woman who has sex while drunk, once in her life, is judged as exactly the same as the professional prostitute who has had hundreds of paid sexual encounters. Both women 'lost' their virginity, but both had vastly different reasons and 'aftermaths' from doing so.

IOW, we all sin . . .some just once, some habitually. And we repent--some just need to do so for the 'one time', some repent often. . .but there's nothing in the study apparently to show how many women 'regret' what they did.

The woman who runs a stop sign once usually pays the fine. She is not necessarily a poor driver because of the one mistake. She should not be considered as being the 'same' as the woman who not only runs a stop sign weekly but also has hundreds of outstanding parking tickets, a couple of DUIs, and is driving without a license to boot.

[quote="rlg94086, post:13, topic:201310"]
Who was claiming otherwise? What does this mean to you? Does this place a value judgement on virginity, or is it just evidence that people have become less moral in our society? Do you think that Catholics believe our society has become more moral?

[/quote]

I think it means that people do what people do...have sex before marriage. So, let's stop with the virginty pledges, the sanctimonious preaching about saving oneself for marriage and let's get real...including the Church.

God and the Church tells everyone not to have sex, but 90% of everyone is having sex....

It would seem that God and the Church has little impact on the choices people make.

[quote="Zatzat, post:15, topic:201310"]
I think it means that people do what people do...have sex before marriage. So, let's stop with the virginty pledges, the sanctimonious preaching about saving oneself for marriage and let's get real...including the Church.

God and the Church tells everyone not to have sex, but 90% of everyone is having sex....

It would seem that God and the Church has little impact on the choices people make.

[/quote]

SEEM is the word.

If YOU want to get real by claiming that since one has 'baser' urges, it is more 'real' to give in than to strive for the higher urges, go ahead. You THINK you'll have lots of company. I prefer to 'get real' by doing what humanity, save in the brief periods where individuals in individual civilizations were collapsing for a brief 'defeat' before rising again, does--striving for the higher things.

Plenty of citizens everywhere from Crete to ancient Rome to the "British Empire' allowed themselves to 'get real' by 'giving in' to all the worst instincts and all the 'lowest common denominator', all the 'materialism', that they could find. And while the majority of them wound up in (briefly) the chaos of their civilization in ruins, the people who were still 'striving for the higher goals' were there, and they were the ones who 'rebuilt'. . .

I prefer to be part of the solution, as it were, not one blindly contributing to the problem. . .

[quote="Zatzat, post:15, topic:201310"]

God and the Church tells everyone not to have sex, but 90% of everyone is having sex....

It would seem that God and the Church has little impact on the choices people make.

[/quote]

If that's the case, Hell will be a crowded place.

[quote="Tantum_ergo, post:11, topic:201310"]
"Do not judge"? You mean, then, that according to the Bible we should just wander about with our eyes and ears tightly shut, lest we somehow make a judgment?

That we are to simply sit back and accept when people do wrong? That we aren't supposed to be able to see if an action is wrong and to help people who are sinning?

How do you reconcile the 'do not judge' attitude with the teaching of the Church on 'admonishing the sinner", and 'instructing the ignorant?" If we 'can't judge', then we can't really tell people what to do, right? Because if we say that people must do X, then we are making a judgment that X is proper, and not-X is not.

It strikes me that people who are quick to bleat, "Oh do not judge people" are doing so with a false understanding of judgment and indeed of charity.

Suppose you see a woman or man who is standing in front of a huge crowd about to give a speech. . .and you notice that they have a milk moustache, strands of spinach between their teeth, or even worse, an unzipped fly. . .

Well, you know, when you come up to them (and you HAVE to do in front of that crowd, you can't get their attention any other way), even if THEY are the only ones who hear your whisper of the problem, they are going to be embarrassed. But how much MORE embarrassed they would be if you never bothered to let them know there was a problem that they COULD CORRECT.

It is a poor understanding of charity that would have a person who noticed a problem 'sit back and shut up' because they would 'embarass' the person by telling them about the problem, and would RATHER let the person go on to far worse embarassment because they did not correct the problem!

[/quote]

I assume you got that I was being facetious?

[quote="Adeodatus, post:18, topic:201310"]
I assume you got that I was being facetious?

[/quote]

Ah, in the Olympic Sport of "jumping to conclusions' I got a gold medal on that one.
(slaps head)

Mea culpa!

[quote="idrum677, post:17, topic:201310"]
If that's the case, Hell will be a crowded place.

[/quote]

Ditto on that. Just because we have free will, doesn't mean that what we do will not have consequences while on earth, and after we die.

It seems that most of these people who wouldn't practice chastity had a 'Follow the leader' mindset when they gave in to their carnal desires. Guess who the leader of vice is?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.