- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Abortion
- Thread starter Danoff
- 2,611 comments
- 138,200 views
Or maybe just dilute the sauce he’s on
- 13,892
- Adelaide
- Neomone
You know, I'm pretty sure everyone had assumed that already.
You sincerely believe that you know someone else's mind better than they do. Not just one person, an entire gender.
Think about that. Then think about the likelihood that you're right versus the likelihood that you're projecting your feelings onto them.
- 626
- Northern Ireland
- GTRP_mirial
Until they regret it much later on.....
Why don't you just pay attention.
From the Heritage Foundation;
INTRODUCTION
This report examines the linkages between early initiation of sexual activity, number of nonmarital
sex partners, and human well-being. In general, the earlier a woman begins sexual activity,
the greater the number of non-marital sex partners she is likely to have over the course of her life.
Early initiation of sexual activity and higher numbers of non-marital sex partners are linked in
turn to a wide variety of negative life outcomes, including increased rates of infection with sexually
transmitted diseases, increased rates of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and birth, increased single
parenthood, decreased marital stability, increased maternal and child poverty, increased abortion,
increased depression, and decreased happiness.
The study is based on the National Survey of Family Growth, a survey fielded in 1995 to a
nationally representative sample of roughly 10,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44, sponsored
and funded by the Centers for Disease Control of the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services. Because men are not included in the NSFG, they are not included anywhere in
this report.
Initiation of Sexual Activity and Number of Sex Partners
The earlier a woman begins sexual activity, the more sexual partners she is likely to have during
her lifetime. Girls who begin voluntary sexual activity at ages 13 or 14 will have, on average, more
than 13 voluntary non-marital sex partners during their lives. By contrast, women who begin sexual
activity in their early 20s will have, on average, 2.7 sexual partners during their lives.
Women who begin sexual activity at early ages also have far higher turnover rates among sexual
partners. (The sex partner turnover rate may be defined as the number of sex partners per year of
sexual activity.) Women who become sexually active at ages 13-14 have a sex partner turnover
rate that is four times higher than the rate found among those who initiate sex activity in their
early 20s.
Negative Consequences of Early Sexual Activity
Beginning sexual activity at an early age is likely to have permanent negative consequences on
the lives of young women. These enduring negative effects can be physical, psychological, social,
and economic. The harmful effects are most pronounced for women who begin sexual activity in
teen years; many will be passed on to future generations. Data from the NSFG showcase the negative
consequences of early sexual activity, which include the following:
• Beginning sexual activity at a young age greatly increases the probability of becoming infected
with sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Girls who began sexual activity at age 13 are twice
as likely to become infected by an STD as girls who started sexual activity at age 21.
• Women who begin sexual activity at an early age are far more likely to become pregnant and
give birth out-of-wedlock. Nearly 40 percent of girls who commence sexual activity at ages 13
or 14 will give birth outside marriage. By contrast, 9 percent of women who begin sexual
activity at ages 21 or 22 will give birth outside marriage.
2 The Harmful Effects of Early Sexual Activity and Multiple Sexual Partners Among Women
• Women who begin sexual activity at earlier ages are more likely to become single mothers.
Women who became sexually active at ages 13 or 14 are more than three times as likely to
become single parents than are women who commence sexual activity in their early 20s.
• Early sexual activity seriously undermines girls’ ability to form stable marriages as adults.
When compared to women who began sexual activity in their early 20s, girls who initiated
sexual activity at ages 13 or 14 were less than half as likely to be in stable marriages in their
30s.
• Early sexual activity is linked to higher levels of child and maternal poverty. Some 27 percent
of mothers who began sexual activity at ages 13 or 14 were living in poverty at the time of the
survey. By contrast, 11.7 percent of mothers who began sexual activity in their early 20s were
poor at the time of the survey.
• Girls who begin sexual activity at an earlier age are far more likely to have abortions. Nearly
30 percent of girls who started sexual activity at ages 13 or 14 have had an abortion. By contrast,
some 12 percent of girls who began sexual activity in their early 20s have had an abortion.
• Beginning sexual activity at an older age is linked to higher levels of personal happiness. More
than half the women who began sexual activity in their early 20s report that they are currently
“very happy” in life. By contrast, only a third of women who began sexual activity at ages 13
or 14 report that they are “very happy.”
The Negative Consequences of Increased Numbers of Non-Marital Sexual Partners
On average, women are best off in life if they are sexually active only within the bounds of marriage.
Increases in the number of non-marital sex partners are linked to a very broad array of negative
life outcomes.
• An increase in the number of non-marital sex partners greatly increases the probability that
one will become infected by sexually transmitted diseases.
• Women who have more non-marital sex partners are more likely to be single mothers. Women
who have had five non-marital sex partners during their lives are seven times more likely to
become single mothers than are women who have engaged in sex only with their husbands.
• Women who have more non-marital sexual partners are more likely to have abortions.
Women who have had five non-marital sexual partners are four times more likely to have
abortions than are women who have engaged in sex only with their husbands.
• Finally, the greater the increase in the number of non-marital sex partners, the lower the probability
of personal happiness. Some 56 percent of women who have had sex only with men
they have married report that they are currently “very happy.” By contrast, only 37 percent of
women with five non-marital sex partners report that they are “very happy.”
The following charts are divided into three sections:
• Charts 1 and 2 deal with the age of initiation of sexual experience and the number and turnover
of sexual partners.
• Charts 3 through 11 report on the social outcomes of women in the NSFG by the age of first
voluntary sexual intercourse.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2003/pdf/Bookofcharts.pdf
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,604
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Yep, let's write a non peer reviewed, self published "paper" that supports a confirmation bias.So a "paper", really a non-reviewed self-undertaken study, from a Conservative group with strongly religious aims is your source? Pur-lease.
EDIT: Tree'd by @baldgye
A source, that back's up the same confirmation bias the member that used it as a source. One that seems to support his desire to utterly control women, which is a dangerous and damaging desire.
- 87,284
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Really, this whole abortion thing started with women getting the vote. I mean, what proper woman would want to vote anyway? She should just be echoing the sentiments of her husband, as all correct and dutiful women should, so really women having the vote just makes the vote of married men more significant than those of bachelors.
Women who go out to work also cause far higher divorce rates by selfishly seeking careers rather than caring for children, which is the highest role any woman could hope to achieve. We really need to return to the days where women remained virginal until marriage - obviously men, as the more driven by sexuality should be seeking multiple sexual partners before choosing the one woman with which he wishes to procreate - and then the bond created by him taking her virginity will see them build an unshakeable environment for her to raise their children (while he can seek sexual gratification elsewhere).
Yes, this is satire. Also who are the men boning if the women are all virgins?
Women who go out to work also cause far higher divorce rates by selfishly seeking careers rather than caring for children, which is the highest role any woman could hope to achieve. We really need to return to the days where women remained virginal until marriage - obviously men, as the more driven by sexuality should be seeking multiple sexual partners before choosing the one woman with which he wishes to procreate - and then the bond created by him taking her virginity will see them build an unshakeable environment for her to raise their children (while he can seek sexual gratification elsewhere).
Yes, this is satire. Also who are the men boning if the women are all virgins?
- 87,284
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Ah, the golden era. Back when women who momentarily forgot how proper women look and behave could be corrected with a loving strike to reset their foolishness. Society was far better back then.
Who actually believes this rubbish? How is society better when half of it is not treated like independent human beings?
- 626
- Northern Ireland
- GTRP_mirial
Not control, but to bring about a more loving, stable environment for bringing kids up. I think we had this conversation before, but if I didn't care, I'd be out there having a ball taking full advantage of the freeness without any consequences whilst not caring less who I've used......I've come across many men who subscribe to liberal politics, but yet they have conveniently used women knowingly when it suited them but never wanted to talk about it. And then some other sod comes along and picks up the emotional baggage.
The present system is chaotic, and I feel for the kids caught up in it. The older system seemed to work better for those men who were disciplined and not selfish, and if it didn't work before, then we could suggest that it was men's fault for bringing us to the situation we're in now where the pendulum has swung the other way. They should have respected the advantageous situation they were in.
This has deviated from the subject of abortion, but the bottom line is that the trauma of abortion could be avoided with less ****ing around.
Tattoo Regret: Why The Majority Of Middle-Aged Americans Are Deciding To Blast Away Their Ink
Who is getting their ink removed?
"According to the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ASAPS), tattoo removal is on the rise and people are paying top dollar to clean up their skin. The number of tattoo removal procedures in the U.S. reached 45,224 in 2013 compared to 40,801 procedures in 2011. Women seem to be having the hardest time with their ink, seeing as they accounted for 32,888 (72.7 percent) of procedures. The amount of money paid for tattoo removal treatments also experienced a steep increase, doubling from 2011 to 2013. In 2013, the national average for tattoo removal procedures reached $588. "
https://www.medicaldaily.com/tattoo...cans-are-deciding-blast-away-their-ink-274428
And this was 7 years ago....
So a "paper", really a non-reviewed self-undertaken study, from a Conservative group with strongly religious aims is your source? Pur-lease.
EDIT: Tree'd by @baldgye
"Dr. Teachman uses three models to demonstrate the effects of premarital sex and premarital
cohabitation on marital disruption. In his first model, Dr. Teachman examines data for all of the
women in the sample without controlling for premarital cohabitation or premarital sex. Model 2
summarizes data between the different groups by controlling for premarital cohabitation. Model 3
controls for both premarital cohabitation and premarital sex.
Model 1 provides descriptive statistics for all women in the sample. In this model, the risk of
divorce is greater for women who marry earlier, are black, have a premarital birth or conception,
have fewer siblings, have less educated mothers, and have experience with other than a two-parent
family. In addition, women who marry men with less education, men who were married before,
men of a different race or religion, men who are at least 2 years younger, or men who believe that
religion is important to very important are at a higher risk of marital disruption.
Learning from Jay Teachman’s “Premarital Sex, Cohabitation, and Divorce: The Broken Link” Page 3
© 2005 The Commission on Marriage and Family Support Initiatives
In Model 2, when a woman has cohabited only with her future husband, the difference in the risk
of divorce is not statistically significant when compared to women who did not cohabit [with their
eventual husband]. The effect of cohabiting twice raises the risk of marital disruption by 44
percent, which is statistically significant from cohabiting only with the future husband. Model 2
also illustrates those women who have their first sexual relationship with someone other than their
husbands experienced an increased risk of marital disruption.
In Model 3, women who had premarital sex and premarital cohabitation have a higher risk of
marital dissolution than women who were abstinent and did not cohabit. Women who cohabited
twice faced a 28 percent higher risk of marital disruption and women who cohabit more than once
and have their first sexual relationship with someone other than her husband have a 109 percent
greater risk of martial disruption. If a woman cohabited and had sex only with her future
husband, there was no statistically significant difference in divorce rates between these woman and
the ones who did not cohabit or have premarital sex. This pattern results because women who
cohabited with their husband only are more likely than women who did not cohabit before
marriage to have had their first sexual relationships with someone other than their husband (73
versus 41 percent). That is, for these women, it is not the fact that they cohabited before marriage
that is important for marital dissolution; it is the fact they had at least one other sexually intimate
relationship prior to marrying.
Other Cohabitation Research
The number of cohabiting couples in the United States has risen dramatically in recent decades. By
2000, the number of unmarried, cohabiting couples in America was almost 4.75 million, up from less
than half a million in 1960 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). Further, many young adults see cohabitation
as an acceptable step towards marriage. In the University of Michigan’s annual Measuring the Futures
Survey of high school seniors, 66 percent of high school senior boys and 61 percent of the girls
indicated they “agreed” or “mostly agreed” with the statement “its is usually a good idea for a couple
to live together before getting married in order to find out whether they really get along” (Bachman,
Johnson and O’Malley, 2000). Using the National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH)
researchers have now estimated that over 50 percent of the couples getting married in the U.S. were
cohabiting prior to their marriages and that about a quarter of unmarried women between the ages
of 25 and 39 are currently living with a partner and about half have lived at some time with an
unmarried partner (Bumpass and Lu, 2000). In reporting research about cohabitation at the Smart
Marriages Conference in Dallas in 2003, noted researcher David Popenoe stated there are no
reasons to believe that trends in premarital cohabitation will be reversed in the near future.
Research on cohabitation has long associated marital instability for couples whose marriages were
preceded by cohabitation. A 1992 study of 3,300 cases, for example, based on the 1987 NSFH,
found that in their marriages prior cohabitors are estimated to have a hazard of dissolution that is
about 46 percent higher than for non-cohabitors (DeMaris and Rao, 1992). Researchers do have
questions regarding the statistical association between cohabitation and divorce. Some researchers
believe that those willing to cohabit may be more unconventional than others and less committed to
the institution of marriage. These are the same people, then, who more easily will leave a marriage if
it becomes troublesome. By this explanation, cohabitation doesn’t cause divorce but is merely
associated with it because similar types of people are involved in both phenomena. This can be
referred to as a “selection effect” which is supported by many researchers (Popenoe, 2000). There
remains much to be learned about cohabitation, which is an emerging area of research.
Learning from Jay Teachman’s “Premarital Sex, Cohabitation, and Divorce: The Broken Link” Page 4
© 2005 The Commission on Marriage and Family Support Initiatives
Conclusions
Overall, Dr. Teachman finds that an intimate premarital relationship limited to one’s future husband
does not significantly affect the risk of marital disruption for women. However, having a sexually
intimate relationship with at least one other man (than one’s future husband) prior to marriage is
linked to an increase in divorce for women. There is also a substantially higher risk of marital
dissolution if women had sex with another man – other than their future husband - and cohabited
with him. Many of these results replicate prior research in that, women who cohabit prior to
marriage or who have premarital sex have an increased likelihood of marital disruption. Dr.
Teachman contends that considering joint effects of premarital cohabitation and premarital sex, as
well as histories of premarital relationships, extends previous research.
One limiting factor in this study is the lack of information the NSFG gives on the prior relationship
histories of men. This research does not address the nature or number of sexually intimate
relationships men may have prior to marriage and/or if they have multiple cohabiting relationships.
Nor does this research shed light on the nature or characteristics of men in these relationships and if
the women drawn to them tend to have the same characteristics. Still, this research does present the
finding that women with more than one intimate relationship prior to marriage have an elevated risk
of marital disruption. This risk of divorce is particularly great for women who cohabited with both
their husbands and another man."
https://esteemjourney.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Premarital-Sex-and-Divorce.pdf
You're all going to complain that there is a correlation and that this is not the cause, but I don't think we're ever going to know for sure unless someone does an extensive study. But I'm willing to bet it's a gradual build up of cynicism (of men), with perhaps strong feelings for a past relationship combined with perhaps the loss of value of sex itself each time. Sure it's just another guy, or it's just another girl.
Last edited by a moderator:
So, ignoring the fact that the sources you provided are bias... what else do you have (bar double spaced lines)?
Some info that some people regret tattoos... okay... aaandd?
Don't you think that you should form an opinion based on facts and reality, rather than some prescribed vision of the world? Women's rights aren't why you feel lost in 2020, they aren't why your parents divorced and pushing against them won’t make you happy.
- 87,284
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
40% of US adults have at least one tattoo, with 70% of those having more than one and 20% having more than five. That's roughly 102 million people with one tattoo or more, with 31m having one and 21m having five or more - or at least 310m tattoos.
50,000 tattoo removals a year is roughly equivalent to 0.016% of all tattoos.
Much regret. Many remove. Such unwomanlyness. Wow.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Abortion does not always have to be traumatic. Yes, for a late-term abortion it might almost necessarily be traumatic. But there are IUDs that prevent implantation of fertilized embryos, which you could consider a type of abortion - it depends on what you think abortion actually means, and there's nothing traumatic about that. I mean, I get that you want abortion to be traumatic, but it doesn't have to be. If you recognize what abortion is properly, much of the trauma is removed, basically all of it in very-early-term abortion cases.
There's an alternative to "less sex" when it comes to avoiding abortion, which is "more birth control" and "more contraceptives". The "less sex" might fulfill the more puritan desires of maintaining a stigma around sex, but it doesn't actually really address the problem. Abstinence is a tough sell, very tough. Lots of teenagers are basically going to screw around regardless of whether you teach abstinence. If avoiding abortion was truly your aim (and again, I question why this is an important aim), then preach contraception and birth control. They're far more likely to actually prevent pregnancy.
Bottom line, you want there to be less ****ing around and you're using abortion as an excuse.
Sex does not lose its value each time. Where do you come up with this stuff?
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,604
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
I think that you have attempted to describe this as a 'liberal' problem highlights the agenda behind this nonsense, its a fantasy of the conservative 'gentleman' who treats women as angels and places them on a pedestal and all was wonderful in the world. It's just that, fantasy and it most certainly is based around control.
The only control an individual should be concerned about is for themselves, this liberal (and by US standards I would be off the charts liberal) has been married for near 25 years, has two stable and well-adjusted kids, despite both of us having a good deal of partners before marriage and plenty of tattoos!
More fantasy, the golden age you are wishing for saw abuse in relationships being common and ignored by the police (who didn't get involved in the marriage), kids locked in families which as dysfunctional and often abusive, children born out of wedlock and the mothers being shunned by society and often thrown into poverty, which the care-homes the children ending up in often far worse than a single-parent family.
No, the trauma of abortion was far worse in your fantasy, given that the majority of it was carried out in unlicenced backstreet facilities that saw infections and death as outcomes that should never exist.
It was 7 years ago, seven years that has seen the popularity of tattoos go through the roof!
...is indeed correlation without causality, from a non-peer reviewed, self-published source with a quite clear agenda.
What’s PragerU?
Edit, ok so they’re a right-wing organisation that generates right wing content for YouTube... why do you think I would share their views?
Last edited:
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
- 23,979
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
You want to avoid paying a speeding ticket or having to take that dull speed awareness course? - Simple. Just never drive in the first place (unless in a stable, loving relationship). It's such a obvious solution when you think about it.
Of course, that analogy leads to a relative comparison between taxis & masturbation and public transport & mutual masturbation and/or orgies.
Christ, thanks for making my commute to work 100x worse
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
- 13,892
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Warning, swears and naughty words that are entirely relevant to the topic of this thread.
There's nothing wrong with women (or anyone) having sex. There's nothing wrong with them enjoying it. If there's problems with marriages failing, perhaps it's due to people who feel an overwhelming need to control their partners instead of working with them to be happy and fulfilled. Perhaps they haven't been shown how to have respectful and engaging relationships, like from their parents who thought that a male enforcing his will on the sexual activities of a female was somehow appropriate and beneficial.
Similar threads
