Study: Surprising Number of Teens Having Group Sex
- Posted on December 20, 2011 at 11:37am by
Liz Klimas
- Print »
- Email »
In a recent study of sexual activity in teens by the Boston University School of Public Health, researchers found that as many as one in 13 teenage girls surveyed said they had participated in group sex.
According to a news release, Emily Rothman, an associate professor of community health sciences at the university, surveyed 328 females who went to a Boston-area community or school-based health clinic. Rothman and her colleagues found that 7.3 percent of teens age 14 to 20 had what they consider multi-person sex — ranging from gang rape to sex parties — and 45 percent said at least one person in the group was not wearing a condom.
“Given the substantial proportion of girls who reported that their MPS was nonconsensual, additional research to understand more about the perpetrators, and how to prevent this particular form of sexual violence, is warranted,” the authors said. “Researchers and clinicians should pay particular attention to younger adolescents engaging in MPS. Given heightened concerns about potential consequences, information about how to address MPS with this subgroup is urgently needed.”
The average age of the girls reporting a MPS experience was 15.6 and half were under 16, meaning Massachusetts state law was begin violated regarding age of consent. A third of those surveyed said drugs or alcohol was a factor, but in half of these cases the drug or alcohol use was not voluntary on the part of the female.
The researchers note that the majority of the girls who had MPS felt they were pressured, threatened, coerced or forced into doing so.
“Group sex among youth is an important public health topic that has received very little attention to date,” Rothman said. “It’s time for parents, pediatricians, federal agencies, and community-based organizations to sit up, pay attention, and take notice: group sex is happening, and we need to be prepared to address it.”
(H/T: Daily Mail)
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 685 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 535 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 445 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 373 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 332 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 290 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 297 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 191 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 301 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 290 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (306)
Nevermind
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:22pmWhat a shocker!! Teenagers having sex!! What is next , a study showing 16 year olds smoking and drinking? This has been going on for years going well back to the 50′s and is hardly anything new but lets see how many of you want to blame it on Obama. I remember in the late 80‘s early 90’s we knew a girl who had sex wiht 14 guys in a row by her choice and she loved it ( i wasnt one of the 14 thank goodness) , there were plenty of girls and guys having 3 somes and group sex as well. Nothing new here.
HTuttle
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:29pmThe difference is now they are admired for doing it.
Report Post »stm62
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 2:06pmI think the article emphasized “group” sex.
Report Post »Moanamcara
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 2:16pm@ Nevermind
Neither this article nor any poster here other than yourself have said anything about Obama being to blame.
You must believe that Obama is doing such a poor job that the assumption is that he is to blame for everything.
Personally, I believe it is individual responsibility and how the kids are raised that is the problem, which has nothing to do with Obama.
Now, if this was somehow linked to the Obama policies that are almost all complete failures, then yes, he would be to blame. But it isn’t. This is a news report about a study that somebody did on teenagers having sex. No mention of Obama. Why bring it up? Quit spreading the hate.
Report Post »no_more_harkin
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 2:16pmGroup sex well back into the 50′s? Do you have any evidence to back up that claim? Even so, it certainly wasn’t accepted and celebrated as it is now.
Report Post »I wouldn’t blame it on Obama, but it is certainly a reflection of declining moral values in the USA starting with the 60′s hippie drug culture.
The “if it feels good, do it” crowd never look past the nose on their face in the consequences of their actions.
Liberals couldn’t care less about declining moral and family values, personal responsibility, and long term effects, they only want what they want now, and damn future generations.
foobear
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 2:19pmNothing new, but the article really shouldn’t have lumped together consensual and non-consensual events together. Likewise, they shouldn’t have lumped together “sex parties” – which could mean anything, really – with all the other categories.
So the numbers they report are pretty suspect.
Nothing will stop the fundies from having a moral panic over this, though. After all, back in Biblical days, men didn’t have sex with more than one woman, right?
Report Post »Mesaba67
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 2:33pmFoobear, We are talking about CHILDREN. You shouldn’t have to be a fundie as you call it in order to want to protect CHILDREN. When I say children i mean under the age of 16. Children should not be pressured about sex by anyone, ever, no matter what you believe.
Report Post »crossfire
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 2:45pmI think this story used the wrong kind of picture kuz those kids look younger then teens and that is creepy…just saying
Report Post »CONNIPTION FITZ
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 2:46pmThe risk and damage is greater now, however.
There are more STDs and the physical damage from these infections is PERMANENT.
But the emotional and spiritual damage is even greater. The more promiscuous a person has been the harder life is after that.. the frequency of divorce and mental health issues is much greater.
God’s way is still the best way and always will be.
Report Post »CONNIPTION FITZ
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 2:49pmWe certainly can BLAME OBAMA (his safe school czar, Kevin Jennings and Clinton) for pushing deviant and horribly unhealthy s*xual practices and abortion in schools and foreign countries.
Report Post »ashestoashes
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 3:02pmNo there is nothing new here…What a discredit it does to us as a nation..for we turned our faces from Him and went the way of immorality..If we followed God and were obedient to Him…we would raise our children to keep chaste before marriage..to not fornicate..lie, party. get drunk, fornicate, commit adultery, not be homosexuals….To honor God is to live life to the fullest..If we could teach our children..how to not have wasted lives. to get an education..how to choose a mate for life..and to honor their bodies as the temple of God..they could look back on their lives and be happy at how it turned out..A foolish son or daughter is a dishonor to their parents “If a people who were called my people ask forgiveness , repent and turn from their wicked ways..I will hear and heal their nation.”
Report Post »turkey13
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 3:34pmWhen the word gets out at the Mosque there will be hell to pay. Both sexes will be stoned as per Sharia law.
Report Post »onecalledsam
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 3:37pmNevermind:
Report Post »You obviously lack the ability for critical thought. The article does not say that kids have never taken part in group sex. It states that group sex among minors is on the rise based upon statistics.
FlamingFartSyndrome
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 3:50pmRight on buddy. I had group sex when i was 13 and i grew up just fine, respect women, and pay my taxes!
Report Post »Wolf
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 3:52pmMonamcara- the Turd is absolutely to blame- and other than destroying America, he hasn’t had one policy success yet.
Report Post »ColorMeRedd
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 3:57pmThe left is not to blame for the acts themselves. But they are to blame for acts such as these becoming more and more acceptable. These things used to be shameful, but the left has tried to take shame out of the equation. Shame is an important tool when it comes to self improvement, and in turn improvement of society. Shame is important for those who wish to learn from their mistakes. A society without shame can quickly fall apart. You might end up with unbathed hippies deficating on sidewalks and sexually assalting each other while protesting those those who creat most to the jobs in this country. Can you imagine that?
Report Post »zorro
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 4:01pmBoston is a very liberal area. I wonder what the results would be in a more conservative town? This doesn’t sound accurate at all.
Report Post »MrGeek
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 4:11pmYou‘re right we all know it’s Bush’s fault!!!
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 4:34pmI consider you and your peurile questions asinine LOCKED. Does that help? Now I know you’ll play the “a ha..don’t want to answer my question” game..but without knowing more about your friends‘ past you’d merely be trying to bait me and I’m not the idiot you are.
Report Post »ghostsouls
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 4:41pmEventually they will get to the nitty gritty which will be like shariah law where 40 and 50 year old men will legally have 5 year old brides. Where bestiality is lawful and legal. Where pedophiles can roam free and open in society. Where rape is a common occurrence, and no one bats an eye. Drugs are legalized not only for adults but for minors as well, same with alcohol. Anything and everything goes. Don’t think so, 50 years ago they didn’t think society would be demoralized to the point it is today… so think again. Modesty is a thing of the past, so is virtue. It is the continuing of the complete breakdown of society, and it will continue until it hits rock bottom.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 4:42pm@Avengerk
Might want to respond to the right comment, bud. I’ll ask the straight (heh, sexuality pun!) question: do you feel that a person only becomes heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual after they’ve had sex? Because that was what your comment about the girl implied. Is it your belief that a person does not have a sexual orientation until they physically have sex?
Again, your comment was:
Report Post »“A fourteen year old self proclaimed “bi-sexual” can confront a presidential candidate today and it doesn’t even raise an eyebrow with society.”
AvengerK
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 5:00pmMore parsing and word mincing LOCKED? I “implied” did I? You tell me champ- what’s “implied” by a fourteen year old girl who identifies herself as a “bi-sexual” to a political candidate while demanding he explain his position against homosexual marriage to her?
Report Post »vngstr
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 5:19pmHey never lost mind! Not only are you wrong morally, legally as well! Most states have statutes as well as laws against this type of activity! Under 18 is “17 will get you 20”! The authorities will find you. Good luck!
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 6:38pm“You tell me champ- what’s “implied” by a fourteen year old girl who identifies herself as a “bi-sexual” to a political candidate while demanding he explain his position against homosexual marriage to her?”
That said candidate doesn’t support gay marriage. So, quid pro quo, doctor: going to stop dancing? I’m mincing and parsing absolutely nothing. You said that a 14 year old claiming to be bisexual doesn’t even raise an eyebrow; to me, that implies that a statement about her orientation SHOULD raise eyebrows. The question is why: do you think sexual orientation is based on attraction or is defined only after having sex?
I mean, it’s really not changing anything of your wording. I’m asking you a clear question on this. If you’re saying that sexual orientation is defined only by who you have sex with, not by to whom you’re attracted, then it would reveal a lot to me about your personal feelings. If you’re saying the opposite, then I’m not sure why you feel it should “raise eyebrows” if a person knows who she likes.
Report Post »Dinkiecb
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 6:43pmIt‘s obamamama’s fault..no wait…..it‘s Bush’s fault..no wait…gee who was that girl i was havin fun with again back in the day?
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 7:33pmAgain…LOCKED..you stated that I “implied” something about a fourteen year old girl claiming to be “bi-sexual” to a politician and demanding he explain his opposition to homosexual marriage to her. What have I “implied” champ? I’m “implying” nothing about Romney as you feebly attempted and your attempt was quite pathetic. His position is clearly stated, no implications there. You do this alot LOCKED. You mince and parse and mealy mouth your way around the obvious to give succor to your liberal sensibilities. Like a true liberal, moral relativism is innate for you. You see no concern with a fourteen year old child claiming to be “bi-sexual” nor her militancy in taking on a politician on his opposition to homosexual marriage (it’s not “implied” opposition champ..nice try)..rather you want to discuss and disect what stage of “bi-sexuality” the child is in. Whether she‘s acted on it or not and whether acting on it or not disqualifies her from claiming she’s “bi-sexual”. And whether her claiming she’s “bi-sexual“ and not acting on it is actually being ”bi-sexual”..ad nauseum. Not the fact that a fourteen year old child is identifying with a very adult sexual mindset. Bi-sexuals are the thorn in homosexuality’s side because they can choose, unlike the purported “unavoidable- born this way” homosexuals declare. Worse..they often end up choosing the opposite sex simply because it’s easier, the number of heterosexuals is greater. Mince away LOCKED
Report Post »toto
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 7:38pmThis is what you get in a godless amoral “tolerant” liberal society. If anyone thinks this is good, or desirable, they just don’t understand the damage done to a stable honorable society with wholesome family units.
Report Post »razortooth
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 7:52pmWould not blame it on o’bamma but clinton did get the juices flowing with his “mouth hug” debacle!
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 7:52pm@Avengerk
Sigh. Apparently you missed the question while you ran your face over your keyboard. Let’s try again:
Do you think sexual orientation is based on attraction or is defined only after having sex?
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 8:00pmLOL…seriously LOCKED? You’re asking me to condense the complexity of the human sexual psyche into the peurile “this or that” you’re demanding? I’m to ignore all the developmental and environmental stimulii a devoloping human psyche is prone to and give you “this or that”? Seriously champ? No wonder you’re a buffoon.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 10:57pm@Avengerk
” You’re asking me to condense the complexity of the human sexual psyche into the peurile “this or that” you’re demanding?”
Not remotely! I want to know YOUR personal definition! Is sexual orientation based on action, or thought? Is being “attracted to a certain (or both) sex enough to define sexual orientation? Or does it require physical action? Do you need to act upon these attraction to be considered “gay” or “straight” or “bisexual”? It’s really not hard to answer. Here! Let me go first! “Sexual orientation is based upon whoever you’re attracted to, not upon physical action.” Your move, good sir. Agree? Disagree? Or, as per usual… ignore the question and dance? Shall we try the cha-cha this time? You’re becoming quite good at dancing around a topic… maybe you should join the Romney campaign?
Report Post »foobear
Posted on December 21, 2011 at 2:04am@MesaBA67: The study was of 14 to 20 year olds, which includes legal adults. The website doesn’t break down the results by age, so it’s sort of pointless to throw out a “think of the children” about this when it’s probably most of the outre sex acts are by college age people.
I’d read the full paper, but they want 35 euros for it, and based on the summary, I really don’t expect to see very good methodology in it.
Report Post »Cat
Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:17amRespondents:
The article is written based on a professor sending her colleges out to find young girls utilizing community or school based clinics for the purpose of determining if the girls had sex with multiple partners, either consensual or nonconsensual, impaired or not
The article does not state the areas in Boston the girls were from, but a good guess based on the girls’ use of government health facilities, it would be the girls from poorer sections of Boston
The report also mentions the timely viewing of pornography in relation to the acts
The report appears to be nothing more than a precursor to banning porn, which is not likely in a society that is being intentionally ripped apart by a government out of control, bringing the circle back to where the professor’s paycheck comes from
Wake up America
Report Post »caveman74
Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:24amthis is not about teenagers having sex. This article points out most of these little girls are being forced to use drugs and alcohol before being forced to do these unspeakable things. As a father of two girls I can tell you I am not afraid to go BACK to jail. And as a father of two boys, if I ever find out they have anything to do with anything like this, again I say I am not afraid to go BACK to jail. You cant blame the left only for this. This is a failure of parents across the board. I hear so many times “you cant know what your kids do every minute of the day”. BS, my parents are lefties who owned their own business and they still found the time and motivation to know my every move as a child and make me pay for the stupid ones every time.
Report Post »mils
Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:56amGroups sex can produce “group” STDs….Group HIV, Group AIDS, Group pregnancy
I don’t know what neighborhood you came from…but there was no group sex when I was growing up…and if you did have sex..you didn’t take pictures…and there were not the diseases there are now
Report Post »The lack of morals and eithics is astounding.
Shiroi Raion
Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:16amIt goes beyond this. When they say multiple partners, some mean dozens. I worked with approx. a hundred 17-25 year old women and virtually no men. The company I worked for was bought by HP and HP hired only young women for some odd reason. Everyone I worked with quit to work at the boss’s other company and I stayed to train the new workers. Anyway, since the place was virtually all young women, they spoke about everything openly. One pregnant teen was asked by another young woman, “Who’s the father?” and the pregnant teen said, “I have it narrowed down to 4 people.” NARROWED DOWN TO 4!!!! How many did she start with?!?!
Report Post »Three other girls (about 19-21) were bragging about the huge number of men they’ve “been with.” All three said that the lost count at around one hundred. One of the few men (only about 8 men out of 120 co-workers where I worked) that came from the original company with me bragged that he had “been with” more than half of the approx. a hundred young girls on the manufacturing floor.
I thought to myself, “How selfish and ignorant… their only concern seems to be getting an STD. They don’t care that their children have a different father every week or month or so…
I have far more horror stories from this place, but only space enough to give you a taste of it.
Locked
Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:18am@MILS
“I don’t know what neighborhood you came from…but there was no group sex when I was growing up…and if you did have sex..you didn’t take pictures…and there were not the diseases there are now
The lack of morals and eithics is astounding.”
Likely there was group sex, you just weren‘t invited and didn’t know about it ;-)
Also, depending on when you were born, cameras weren’t likely popular; and even if they were, you’d have to have someone develop the photos (no digital technology!). They weren’t popular when I was growing up, at least, and I’m not that old!
Also also, there were plenty of STIs whenever you grew up. HIV didn’t really become known until the 1980s, but most of the main baddies (the clap, gonorrhea, herpes) have been around for centuries.
Risky sexual behavior is not a recent phenomenon; it just gets more coverage now that information is transmitted more easily.
Report Post »black9897
Posted on December 21, 2011 at 12:40pmSigh. too many sluts and male whores now a days.
Report Post »Ted H
Posted on December 21, 2011 at 1:32pmBet you’d be shocked if it was your 15 year old daughter
Report Post »shabe
Posted on December 21, 2011 at 3:11pmI don’t think this has anything to do with Obama rather it has a lot to do with the moral decline and lack of self-respect we have been experiencing at alarming rates. Now that same moral decline probably has a lot to do with Obama getting elected in the first place.
Report Post »dread_pirate_roberts
Posted on December 21, 2011 at 6:26pmprimary
Report Post »secondary-sloppy seconds
tertiary-thrashed on thirds
fortuitous fourths
fanatical fifths
sadistic sixths
satanic sevenths
egotistical eighths
non-existent ninths
tenacious tenths
Libertyluvnmomma
Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:00pmwhen we got questionnaires like these in high school,I made all kinds of outrageous stuff up..
Report Post »so keep that in mind.
Libertyluvnmomma
Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:03pm@ DREAD PIE RAT roberts- what number is butt pirate?
Report Post »pslm5119
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 8:16amGroup sex and gang rape are 2 different animals. Both are disturbing, but one is a violent crime that has more to do with aggression and anger rather than having an orgasm.
Report Post »Side note: Cootie Alert! That’s gross. Who wants to swim in such a variety of body fluid? I feel like I need to take a shower after reading this.
proudinfidel54
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 1:28pmI would go as far as to say at least half of the ones denying it were doing it as well, not to mention, there was probably a lot less force involved then they stated, on both the sex and the drug use.
Report Post »SenorStrange
Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:59pmand now they have the democrats supporting them and ready to charge them for an abortion when they are done. Oh and did you read the part about it being forced. That probably doesn’t matter to you either.
Report Post »insignia
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:20pmExactly why ALL pornography needs to be banned from the internet. It’s far too easily accessible and rots out the mind of the youth and society in general. It’s intentional and by design.
Report Post »SpankDaMonkey
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:26pm.
Report Post »What’s next? Cheetoes and napkins?…………
Delta D-5-3
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:28pmJust another sign that society is breaking down. My god, it’s the Roman Empire all over again……..
Report Post »thedarkknightreturns
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:28pmNothing should be subjected to an outright ban. The Peoples Republic of China has completely banned all forms of pornography and have made it criminal to make or possess it. These sorts of policies are as communist in spirit as it gets.
Report Post »Rowgue
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:33pm@DARKNIGHT
So the outright ban on murder is unreasonable then right? No just your argument is.
Report Post »bullcrapbuster
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:47pmNo, Spankamonkey……just soul destroying addictive porn.
Report Post »Lesterp
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:47pmRowgue, Your analogy does not hold water! Unborn babies are murdered legally every day. I am not for porn on the Internet but, what would be next, conservative sites, liberal sites, any site our current “leaders” feel are harmful to society? Enough regulations, monitor your children like parents are supposed to do!
Report Post »Delta_River_Folk
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:47pmThis health advisory is sponsored by HOLLYWOOD. Please go out and support your favorite movie star buy paying for another movie ticket or better yet buy the DVD and take it home.
Hollywood is the root of all evil.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:53pmWhat a surprise…the continual sexualization of children (with parents today contributing to it) by liberals has brought us to school age group sex as if it’s run of the mill. A fourteen year old self proclaimed “bi-sexual” can confront a presidential candidate today and it doesn’t even raise an eyebrow with society. Just when I believe liberalism can’t get any more vile and distasteful…..
Report Post »rt elms
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:55pmBefore we go and ban porn on the Internet, the healthy mature individual knows pornography has a proper place in our daily life; that place is permanently in our past!
Report Post »Apple Bite
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 1:04pmBlaming the internet isn’t the solution. The solution goes back to the parents of the teens and getting the government out of families private life. Parents can’t teach their children right from wrong if the government is nit picking everything they do to punish their child for bad behavior, among other things…
Report Post »Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 1:08pmMan, I was born TOO SOON!
AvengerK
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 1:15pmWhat do you expect to take place when Obama appoints stealth pedophiles like Kevin Jennings to the position of “Czar of Safe Schools”? This disgusting little man started GLSEN, an organization that advocates the teaching of explicit sex acts to school age children. We have school curriculums now that elevate individuals in the past and present solely for their homosexuality. Marxism has made no mystery of the fact that the dissolution of the family unit is paramount to it. What better way to erode the family unit than to sexualize children and have them enter adult lifestyles at an age where they’re not mentally or emotionally fit to be? You’ve got the libral media and entertainment saturating children with sexual images. I dont’ blame the internet, computers and portable devices can be monitored by a parent. I blame liberalism for stealing childhood and the wonders of discovering yourself in your own time from children and adolescents, all for it’s decrepit, worthless ideology.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 1:18pmYou have a thing for underage girls DAS KAPITAL QUOTIN’, CHRISTIAN FEARIN’, LEFTY? Why am I not surprised?
Report Post »cessna152
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 1:19pmNah, we don’t need God in our society…
Gee, why do Progressives try SO hard to remove God from society? It’s pretty obvious to me…
Report Post »bhohater
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 1:21pmWhat we learned from Prohibition was that trying legislate morality only makes things worse.
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 1:24pm@Rowgue
But murder is not banned outright. Justifiable homocide carries no pentalty under the law. Not to mention the various degrees of murder and manslaughter. A healthy society understands there is a time and a place for everything, group sex and pornography included.
Report Post »MangoT21
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 1:24pmNot that I suppport pornography in any fashion…but nothing should be banned from the internet so long as it’s legal and all parties are consenting.
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 1:24pmSeriously?
You “Ban It All” people utterly befuddle me. You cry for one thing after another to be banned, then at the end of it all, you cry because you have a government well and truly out of control, and wonder how you got there.
SMH
Report Post »Arshloch
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 1:26pmWhat does the internet have to do with a gang bang?
Report Post »techengineer11
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 1:26pmWhy is that surprising considering the devils running Hollywood and Viacom. They are doing exactly as they are being taught/programmed. This Nation is sick! We are not 10 years from complete moral and economic collapse and many are still advocating War with another country.. Sick and brain-dead to boot!
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 1:30pmPornography, like many things, can be addicting. Especially for younger children without any context for sexuality, it can be especially influential. Does every person (or child) who looks at porn become a sexual deviant and addict who can no longer have a healthy sexual relationship as an adult? No: but it increases the odds of it happening, as research has shown time and again.
I think the current laws are likely sufficient though. It’s illegal for vendors of pornography to sell to children. If we made it illegal for children to possess pornography, then it would go too far. Face it: kids are curious about sex. The best things that parents can do is have “the talk” early on, and give their kids a good moral foundation. A blocking mechanism on your personal internet access can go a long way as well!
Report Post »hargisP
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 1:32pm@ Darkknightreturns So you are as sick as the people who publish porno. There is a law against disgusting publications. And you should be put away.
Report Post »techengineer11
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 1:35pmDelta_River_Folk “Hollywood is the root of all evil.”
I certainly agree with that statement 100% but who is Hollywood? Can it be defined? Who are these people producing and making all of these sacrilegious and obscene shows? Could they have an agenda? What is the agenda?
Why are there not more people asking questions? Does anyone think that what has transpired in this country over the past 40-50 years is mere coincidence? Seriously? Look around. Practically everything that is being promoted in this country is disgusting! What happened? Is it hippie power? Was it the Progressives? What is behind our precipitous fall from grace? I really don’t know if there is a country ever in the history of the World which has fallen as fast and as far as the United States has the past 50 years. Pretty amazing to me and what’s even worse is that so many well meaning people are simply sitting back scratching their heads saying that if we can just get a candidate good on the economy we’ll be alright… lol
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 1:38pm@Avengerk
“A fourteen year old self proclaimed “bi-sexual” can confront a presidential candidate today and it doesn’t even raise an eyebrow with society. ”
Question related to this. I have a male friend who is 26 years old, has been in a committed relationship with girl for two years, and both them are virgins waiting until marriage. Would you consider him asexual, even though he is interested in women and plans to marry this girl, or would you consider him heterosexual?
Report Post »Ookspay
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 1:48pm@Bible Quotin‘ Science Fearin’ Conservative American “Man, I was born TOO SOON!”
LOL, I hear ya Brotha… When I was in high scrool, group sex was using both hands!
Report Post »RedFlyer
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 1:57pmYou do realize it is people like you that make people like Obama, right?
Report Post »PretzelLogic
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 2:38pmSure, Insignia, let’s have even more government intrusion and regulations in our lives. Seriously, don’t we have enough already? How about we prosecute the criminals and stop with sticking our legislative noses any farther into everyone’s personal freedom?
Report Post »CONNIPTION FITZ
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 2:54pmAGREED! P***ography is as addictive as heroin. It is the crack cocaine of this century.
See Newsweek’s article on s-xual addiction:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/11/27/the-sex-addiction-epidemic.html
Report Post »hidden_lion
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 3:05pm“Just another sign that society is breaking down”
Society is a myth. It is not breaking down, it is broken.
Report Post »People who are concerned because these are children and not about the depravity involved- Just a century ago a `16 year old who was not married and having children was considered a spinster. A 12 year old boy was considered a man and would be expected to run the farm, or business in the fathers absence. It isn’t that they are physically children, it is that they are raised to be mentally children until their late 20‘s early 30’s. That is where society is broke.
Detroit paperboy
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 3:33pmI remember this chick did the football team in 1980, so its been goin on for a while, i played middle linebacker ; ))…
Report Post »WAKEUPUSA2012
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 4:04pmBanned? WTF is wrong with you? I know you neocons love to step all over people rights, but you have no right to BAN anything that isnt hurting anyone. Im not for porn and would never let my kids look at it. Thats why I have a antivirus that I pay for and it can block certain sites. But you freaks go outright and ban ish? wth is wrong with you. this isnt china damnit this is america. where as long as your not hurting anyone you can do what you want. if you would raise your kids and talk to them about this stuff maybe they wouldnt be little pervs. God Help US
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 4:42pmLOCKED…perhaps if you actually stated your friends’ past instead of attempting to bait me with your games you could answer your own silly questions? Spare me your peurile “gotchas”, ok?
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 4:58pm@Avengerk
“perhaps if you actually stated your friends’ past instead of attempting to bait me with your games you could answer your own silly questions? Spare me your peurile “gotchas”, ok?”
Sure. What facts would you consider relevant to deciding someone’s sexual orientation? I‘ve already told you that he’s:
1. In a committed relationship with a girl he plans to marry
2. They’re both virgins
What other things would you need to know to decide “Is he heterosexual or asexual?” To rephrase the question and address your original point: what decides your sexuality? It it who you’re attracted to, or only decided if you have sex?
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 6:43pmLOCKED, it appears my previous response may have met the wrath of the monitors here so I’ll try another approach…Can you tell me what’s “asexual” about a couple who’ve stated they will be intimate with each other in the future pending the meeting of pre-determined criteria? Is the choice to as to when to be sexually intimate perceived by you as being “asexual”? Going purely on what you tell me and not knowing your friends’ sexual pasts they are in a heterosexual relationship today. Did this need clarification for you? May I ask why you require me to participate in your buffoonery in associating the choice as to when to be intimate and using that to determine whether someone is heterosexual, bi-sexual or homosexual? I’m expecting your customary word mincing and parsing and “implying” however your idiocy has been indulged enough today.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 7:15pm@Avengerk
“May I ask why you require me to participate in your buffoonery in associating the choice as to when to be intimate and using that to determine whether someone is heterosexual, bi-sexual or homosexual?”
I don’t require. You have free will not to participate. I simply want to know your answer. Do you define sexual orientation based on physical action or just sexual attraction?
As I mentioned before, it’s in relation to your reaction when you said a 14 year old proclaiming her bisexuality “doesn’t even raise an eyebrow.” I’m wondering why you think it should: 14 year old are attracted to people. Some are attracted to both sexes. You‘re acting like it’s something that should be frowned upon. But it doesn‘t mean she’s having sex, right?
If I misunderstood you, that you agree that sexual orientation is based on sexual attraction and not sexual action, and you had some other reason for thinking a 14 year old being bisexual should raise eyebrows, my apologies.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 7:24pm@Avengerk
Oh, and to answer the other questions:
“Can you tell me what’s “asexual” about a couple who’ve stated they will be intimate with each other in the future pending the meeting of pre-determined criteria?”
Nothing. I’m firmly of the belief that your innate attraction to one gender or the other (or both) determines your sexuality, not the physical act of sex. I don’t think sex or sexual acts at all are required to determine sexuality. Hence my question: I’m confused why, in an article about teen sex, you’re saying someone calling themselves bisexual should raise an eyebrow. It doesn’t mean they are having sex: it means they have attractions to both genders. Right?
“Is the choice to as to when to be sexually intimate perceived by you as being “asexual”?”
No, the definition of asexuality would be not having sexual attraction to anything. But it seems like you were coming from a “it needs physical action to be categorized” point of view, and I don’t know what you (YOU personally) would define a sexual orientation as if there was no physical act.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 7:49pmBy all means LOCKED…when your fourteen year old child says she’s “bi-sexual” to you…sit her down and ask her..”darling..are you saying you’re bi-sexual because you‘re having sex with both sexes or are you convinced you want to have sex with both sexes but just haven’t had sex with them yet..because that;’s an important distinction”. Mealy mouthed idiot.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 7:54pm@Avengerk
I keep answering your questions, but you never seem to answer mine. Let’s try again, shall we?
“Do you think sexual orientation is based on attraction or is defined only after having sex?”
There is an important difference. I find it amazing that you can’t see it, but I’ll hold off on that. I want to know how you define sexual orientation: is it based on action or attraction?
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 8:05pmLOL..really LOCKED? You called your deflection earlier to Mitt Romney answering my question champ? Yes LOCKED of course….I’ll ignore the complexity of the human sexual psyche and all the psychological and environmental stimulii a developing psyche absorbs that shape it and play your “this or that” game with you. Idiot.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 10:50pm@Avengerk
Answer the question, please. I’d like to know, for future discussions I’m sure we will have. It’s not tough. Do you think human sexual orientation is based on attraction or action? Or as I said:
“Do you think sexual orientation is based on attraction or is defined only after having sex?”
Honestly, now. You’re trying to “pull a Romney,” by evading. I’d hope you would more forthright. Now’s your chance. Take a stance!
Report Post »Tattarax
Posted on December 21, 2011 at 11:37amIt’s already illegal for any of these kids to be accessing pornography. “Ban It! Ban It!” is the cry of the intellectual weakling. The person who’s unwilling or unable to deal with the actual problem just goes for the easy, government-enforced solution.
Every single child who’s engaging in group sex and the like is suffering from a lack of proper adult supervision, a moral-less upbringing and parents who’re either unwilling or unable to discipline their children.
Work on those problems first. Besides, the government has “banned” people from smoking marijuana, yet its more potent and used than ever. So much for a government ban accomplishing something….
Report Post »quarter horseman
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:17pmI’m so thankfull my parents didnt let me watch MTV growing up that is a lot of where this stems from. Watch what you children are watching it has an influence, like Victorious I thought it was ok then I was watching with my kids and boom there it was the boy told two girls he wanted to see them kiss.
Report Post »coindexter
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 2:00pmso we are back to the 60′s sex revolution and overall lack of morals. little girls dress like lady gaga and wear skirts about three inches long and we expect little boys to behave. why didn’t feminism also teach little girls about dressing conservatively? why does pop culture always take us to the dark side? parenting has been lacking for a couple generations and the damage is almost irreversible.
Report Post »This_Individual
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:15pmI bet it’s all a bunch of hoowey.
Report Post »thegreatcarnac
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:14pmSodom and gomorrah had the same mindset.
Report Post »WOLFENII
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:13pmHow can they say the study is surprising when all they teach in the public schools is gay sex, promiscuity, if it feels good do it? ABSOLUTELY AMAZING…
ALSO, @LORDACTION: IF A WOMAN/GIRL SAYS “NO” AND U PUMP ALCOHOL OR DOPE IN HER AND HAVE SEX, IT IS RAPE. CONSENSUAL SEX IS ONE THING, GETTING THEM STONED OR DRUNK IS ANOTHER. ESPECIALLY GIRLS IN THIS AGE GROUP.
AM SERIOUSLY GLAD MY DAUGHTER DOES NOT KNOW YOU.
Report Post »scion88
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:12pmTherefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. Romans 8:28
Report Post »No God = moral depravity…just as the days of Noah were.
vtmawhinney
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:10pmWhy is it surprising that our children’s behavior is imitating the explicit pornography portrayals that flood the internet? To say that such actions have always happened is to display ignorance of the psychological principles that influence human behavior.
Monkey see, monkey do….and the moneys are us!
Join me at http://www.culturalsurvivalskills.com
V. Thomas Mawhinney, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Psychology
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:03pmLeft wingers think this is a good thing.
Report Post »last frontier
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:13pmBecause they have spent a lot of money to make it happen.
Report Post »HKS
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:43pmThey survive on the backs of ignorance, making more welfare everyday. It’s like job security to a liberal.
Report Post »stool
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:03pmSo what, Arnold was purportedly having sex with a 16 year old when he was n his late 20s. Orgies, and a lot of stuff much worse than Herman Cain according to news articles you’ll find if you google Arnold sex 16 year old.
http://theblemish.com/2011/05/arnold-has-more-mistresses-had-sex-with-a-16-year-old/
Report Post »stool
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:12pmHonestly I think any teen that gets knocked up should be permanently sterilized.
Report Post »jmiller_42
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:02pmYou’re right, look at these nuts Paulbots, thinking that it would be better for the parents to do their job rather than pay the government to do it for them. How disgusting. I mean, we already pay the government to give them abortions, why not pay them a little more to teach them that group sex may not be ok if everyone isn’t wearing a condom.
Report Post »CS Lewis FAN
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:16pmI don‘t see how you’re associating Ron Paul supporters with this article. Since you did, then I’ll try as well. Freedom to educate your own children instead of the government doing so means more parents will actually realize it’s up to them. Parents will likely protect them with loving advice, not just give them access to condoms and abortion clinics for an unGodly way to put a bandage on after the damage has been done.
Report Post »jmiller_42
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 1:28pmSorry CS I was being sarcastic, and replying to an earlier post
Report Post »cycloid
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 11:59amYoung Occupiers in Training.
Report Post »B-Neil
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 11:59amWhat a joke. How much stimulus money did they get to carry out this research? I’m an old fart. This type of sexual activity occured quit often back in my time, in the States and overseas. It was just part of having fun. Did’nt mean nothing. I love it when Individuals try to make there “ discoveries sound current” They don’t stop to think how stupid it makes them look and sound. CARRY ON McDUFF p.s. MERRY CHRISTMAS to all, even the atheists
Report Post »pap pap
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:14pmB-Neil
Your right this is nothing new. Back in the 60′s it was common place and there were always some girls that were eager to do this. Even now.
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on December 21, 2011 at 5:26amThere was group sex before Christianity–there will be group sex after Christianity.
Report Post »moodtd01
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 11:57amJust one more sign that our society is degenerating into evil. Roman Empire anyone? Where would young men get the idea that group sex is the thing to do? Pornography? Is it really, ok? Is there ANY truth to pornography? As a recovered porn consumer I can tell you that every single act of sexual deviancy came from viewing such things and then fantasizing about them to the point of eventually trying to or actually acting on them. Do women ever enjoy doing the things in porn? Not usually. Except the ones that have been raped, molested, or abused and are “looking for love in all the wrong places”. All of this is from personal experience not someone else opinion. In fact, my wife will tell anyone who asks that our relationship has turned around 180 degrees since I rededicated my life to Jesus Christ, and turned away from pornography.
Report Post »AmericanStrega
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:00pmDon’t just blame the guys Bub. The girls act the same way. (I’m a female, BTW).
Report Post »Marci
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:02pmExcellent advice Mood, and this is one person who appreciates your willingness to speak up about it. It’s easy for the rest of us to condemn it, but it isn’t taken seriously by those who think it is no big deal. To hear it from someone who has been there makes a big difference.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:12pm” Is there ANY truth to pornography?”
Depends what you watch, I’d imagine. As a “recovered porn consumer” who sounds like an addict in denial, I doubt your viewings of “Lusty Goats and the Scottsmen who love them” were close to reality. Whereas with enough time and effort I’m sure you could find some legitimate amateur home videos of actual people enjoying themselves together.
Report Post »Athinkerinaseaoflibs
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:33pmDear Sir: Kudos and may you remain strong.
Report Post »drattastic
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:42pm“The researchers note that the majority of the girls who had MPS felt they were pressured, threatened, coerced or forced into doing so”.
So let me get this straight . I’m sure the liberals have no problem with MPS but just in case any of them do, make sure that females are considered victims in all of this. Really ? I’ve seen enough to know that women have achieved the sexual liberation that all those feminist screamed about back in the 60s and 70s . Well here it is ,women are now just as depraved as men ,don’t make excuses or play the victim card. What a shame virtue is dead or dying.
Report Post »Jennifer_D
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 9:22pm@MoodTDo1
Good for you that you have stepped up and made changes for the betterment of your family.
You are right when you say that pornography is one reason such vile things are happening in our society. Why are children having sex so early and engaging in such deviant acts? Because they are being exposed to an overly sexualized culture. Some kids also lack parents who are doing their jobs as parents. How many of these parents are more concerned about themselves than they are their children?
Anyone who says that pornography doesn‘t play a role in someone’s outlook and what they will or will not do hasn’t thought enough on the subject. When people are continuously exposed to depravity they become desensitized.
@Locked
You are wrong regarding people not wanting to engage in activities that they see in pornographic movies. As I said above, when someone is exposed to deviancy it becomes a norm for them. That is what has happened to our society. We have normalized deviant behavior.
Some else posted a link to The Pink Cross here before. I think you might find some of the articles and information presented interesting. Especially this article: http://thepinkcross.org/pinkcross-articles/december-2011/effects-pornography-individuals-marriage-family-and-community
Report Post »JLGunner
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 11:55amWith Kim Kardashian, Snooky and so many others flaunted in the media as they are, you would expect anything different?
Report Post »His_Way
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 8:59pmWho outside of believers, accountable before God, who believe in abstinence before marriage?
I work in the medical field where I sadly, see almost daily, parents acting more like best friends to their children, helping their 15, 16, 17 y/o daughters/children get on birth contol because they are sexually active. I once had a mother proudly brag to me ” he just can’t keep off of her”. I see this in every socio-economic level. STD’s are very common among this age group. I was not raised at all like this, just makes my stomach turn.
Report Post »AmericanStrega
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 11:54amWhat else is new? This has been going on forever. Girls who allow, yes I said allow, themselves to be in a position where they may be taken advantage of, need better parents. YES, I believe it’s the parents fault that this happens. I will give you an example: I was one of these girls at the age of 14. My parents decided they didn’t care to try and control my behavoir and turned a blind eye. The only time they paid any attention was when I didn’t come home for two or three days and people were wondering where I was. Believe me, when I got home I got a beating ( I mean a real one. You know, with fists to the face, gut, wherever my father could hit). Then after that, I was free to run again. It’s up to the parents to raise their children with guidence, love, discipline and respect for themselves and others. BTW, I chose not to have children because I was concerned that I would 1) beat them. 2) not care enough to guide, love, discipline and respect themselves and others. I do not regret my choice.
Report Post »Rowgue
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:11pmI’m kind of tired of this excuse to be honest. Maybe you didn’t have the best most attentive parents in the world, but you still made your own choices. There are plenty of people that grow up with great parents that turn out to be degenerates, and plenty of people with horrible parents that turn out to be incredible people.
People that use this excuse are usually just obsessed with being showered with attention. If they‘re not getting as much as they want then they act out because they know they’ll get it if people are angry with them and worried about them.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:14pm“Girls who allow, yes I said allow, themselves to be in a position where they may be taken advantage of, need better parents.”
Odd. Usually I place more blame the people taking advantage of others, not the ones being taken advantage of, and almost never a third party. Guess your view on the world is different.
Report Post »netmail
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:15pmI admire your honesty. You don’t kid yourself. You’re always free to change your mind though…if you want to. Merry Christmas.
Report Post »Athinkerinaseaoflibs
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:35pmDear Americanstrega: Thank you for not having children.
Report Post »AmericanStrega
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 1:53pmActually I wasn’t looking for anything close to being “Showered with attention”. I did what I wanted to do. They did what they wanted to do when it looked like they were being remiss in their child-rearing. I took from my experience what I did and am a better person for it. Obsessed? No. I’m a very happy adult and even have a very good relationship with my Mother. My father can go suck eggs. NEXT!
Report Post »chicago76
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 11:54amProbably inner city kids. Can’t wait to have that baby and get on welfare after school. After all, it is the only way of life they know.
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 11:52amJust like in the Bible right before all kinds of people drop off the “Face” of the earth. Of course the Bible calls them beasts. Now, if your thinking, just a slight thought of “Sounds interesting”, that’s when you should tell yourself, “Get behind me Satan.”
Report Post »rotcarpenter
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 11:47amNah. Why should we stop it? That would be shredding the constitution! Everyone has their rights! Correct Paulbots??
Report Post »BoomSlander
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 11:51amYeah, why let parents teach their children when te government can do it for them?!
Report Post »jmiller_42
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:00pmYou’re right, look at these nuts Paulbots, thinking that it would be better for the parents to do their job rather than pay the government to do it for them. How disgusting. I mean, we already pay the government to give them abortions, why not pay them a little more to teach them that group sex may not be ok if everyone isn’t wearing a condom.
Report Post »justangry
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:11pmYup. Parents should teach their children right from wrong regarding sex not the government. Seriously, with all the deviants we’ve had in the Whitehouse throughout history, why would anyone assume they’d do a good job teaching children not to have group sex. Obviously the department of education and sex ed classes aren’t doing a good job at preventing it, and you want more government intervention?
Report Post »JLGunner
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:14pmGovernment has already undermined parents authority in the public school system. Remember the gender neutrality classes that elementary schools were teaching thier kids? I understand education prevents STDs and unwanted pregnancies but this is not the governments responsibility.
Report Post »rotcarpenter
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:47pmNah. Parents don’t even have the right.
Report Post »MonkeyBeagle
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 11:47amthought it would be higher., not shocked at all. This is what America has become, when kids are exposed to hardcore pornagraphy on the web at an average age of 12 this is what you get. When MTV has a show where every cast member is on Valtrex to suppress their herpes breakouts. (JERSY SHORE) yep its true.
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 11:46amQuestions to be answered about the survey…
Who funded it?
What is the agenda if any behind it?
Was the data manipulated?
Was the question staged in such a way that only one answer is acceptable?
Right now I have to wonder about it.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:01pmGood thing the link in the article provided a link to the full study so you could answer all of these questions for us!
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-12/bumc-gsa121611.php
Report Post »jess5691
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:22pmI’m kinda skeptical of the methodology. First, the survey was only of a single Boston clinic, so it is not accurate to make conclusions about the entire nation. Second, there is self-selection bias: the survey was only done on females who went to the health clinic. Women who are not sexually active are much less likely to go to a community health clinic than someone who is engaging in unprotected sex, which skews the sample. My guess is that the actual percentage of teenage girls engaging in group sex is significantly lower than the reported number.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 1:16pm@Jess
“First, the survey was only of a single Boston clinic”
Are you sure? The methodology said 5 clinics screened the pool of participants.
“This study collected cross-sectional survey data from 495 females ages 14–20 years
old who utilized adolescent-specific, community- or school-based clinics in the urban
neighborhoods of Greater Boston between April and December of 2006. A total of
1,224 adolescent females seeking services at five clinics were screened for age
eligibility by a trained researcher prior to their appointment”
Your other points are very good. However, it is NOT the survey who says that teen group sex is one the rise. The survey clearly says which group they’re studying: ”
Using retrospective data from a sample of adolescent females who utilized urban
health clinics, this article describes the prevalence, correlates, and context of MPS
experiences.”
The articles reporting on it mention the fact, but breeze over it. The Daily News article that The Blaze posted is more vague than the EurekAltert article linked to it, which is more vague than the study itself, which clearly says their popular of interest is adolescent girls in and around Boston who use health clinics.
I’m glad you pointed it out, as a lot of people will likely just assume the survey was about US teens in general, not just urban Boston teens using health clinics.
Report Post »dnewton
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 9:04pmSmall sample, self reporting, no reward or punishment for misreporting, no way to cross check, was unwanted sex reported? … This sounds like a future justification for more government money to do a lot of things.
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 11:46amWe are going to use… the parts that GOD Gave us!
Report Post »last frontier
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:01pmNow the face drawn on the hand makes sense.
Report Post »Mapache
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 11:45amThe barriers of private space, modesty, and personal privacy issues issues have fallen. With free and practically unlimited access to online sex sites, why the surprise? Kids talk freely about sexual activities quite freely and the barriers to engaging in recreational sexual activity are scorned. Sex is increasingly seen as a group bonding event like a group of athletes engaging in activity with the same girl. Quite sad but not unexpected.
Report Post »Tri-ox
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 11:44amContinue to abandon/ignore the teachings of the Bible, and society will continue its death-spiral.
Report Post »TXPilot
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 11:54amSadly, despite this study, many geeks still can’t seem to get a date.
Report Post »CONNIPTION FITZ
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 2:41pmRight on, TRI-OX.
God set the (healthiest and safest) boundaries and when we cross them we ALWAYS hurt ourselves and others.
Our Father God Knows Best.
Report Post »lordaction
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 11:42amBeing “pressured” is not the same as being raped. Sorry, this survey is worthless.
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:08pmHow do you figure that bit of logic. If someone pressures me to do something I don’t want to do and they have sex with me, it is still rape. Perhaps you need to update your definition.
Let me guess are you trying to absolve your past actions?
Report Post »moodtd01
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:09pm“Pressure” or coercion is getting someone to do what they do not want to. Think if you had a daughter or a son, and some pervert “pressured” them into doing something foul with them. Would this be ok with you? Or lets see, a girl all alone with a guy she likes, he offers her a drink, then another, suddenly 3 other guys enter the room and start “sweettalking/pressuring” her into doing foul things with them. What is going on in her mind? “What if I say no and try to leave? Will they rape me? Will they hurt me? etc… Then when the boys are all done having “not rape” sex with the girl they tell her not to tell anyone especially the cops (give any number of reasons why she shouldn’t).
Report Post »Now, if this girl had gone to Church, been raised in a decent home where values were still taught, and told not to do anything with a boy until she was married… Is it possible that she would not have been in this situation?
How about the boys? If they would have been raised in a Godly home. If our Supreme Court had not USURPED the rights that we as citizens, communities, and states within the U.S. were granted by the Constitution to protect ourselves we would have been able to stop this SCOURGE in society called pornagraphy. Then where would these boys have come up with this idea to have “consentual” group sex? After all, what normal hetrosexual male wants to share a woman with another man? It is unnatural.
ThomPaine
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:37pmIf the girls are under the age of consent it absolutely is rape.
Report Post »foobear
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 2:22pmAs I said elsewhere, you’re right, this study is worthless, as it groups together lots of unrelated activities under one umbrella. Rape is absolutely not the same thing as a “sex party” which itself might not even involve having sex with multiple people. But they call it all “Multi-partner sex”.
Atrocious methodology.
Report Post »rafa2design
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:54pmSo why are you even on here wasting your time reading comments and complaining? Did you forget that The Blaze is a conservative news site launched by Glenn Beck? If you‘ve ever heard Glenn’s radio show you‘ll know how open he is about stating we should return to God’s ways. If you want to not hear about God there are hundreds of other news sites. CNN, MSNBC, BBC News … take your pick.
Report Post »