Published: Monday, Aug. 12 2013 10:05 p.m. MDT
"Of those who reported being sexually active, Monto said that modern young
adults were more likely to report having a sexual relationship with a casual
date or someone he or she picked up (44.4 percent compared to 34.5 percent in
1988-96) or with a friend (68.6 percent, compared to 55.7 percent). They were
less apt to have a spouse or regular sexual partner (77.1 percent to 84.5
percent in the earlier-era group)."I don't understand.
44.5% is one third more than 34.5%; 68.6% is more than twenty percent more than
55.7%. How are these numbers not indicative of significant change? One third
more, one fifth more... in any other context i think we would consider them
significant. Unemployment is one third higher now than it was in 1990 sounds
very significant. The wealth gap between the top five percent and the rest of
the population represents a gain of 21% in the past 25 years. Once again, very
significant. Why are they labelled meaningless here?
Wait, this can't be right. The religious folks are always telling us that
the dramatic rise in secularization and unbelief constitutes a loss of morality
in society!?But this study says the moral sky is not falling
Very wise of the church (LDS) to allow missions at 19 before they are influenced
by the corporation of "college life." I would argue with comment above,
"The Sky is Falling" on our society as a whole!
A Scientist:Yes, morals are worse today than in the past. This study
and article covers a small sliver of what can be considered a loss of morality.
For example, it is safe to say the following of today compared to the past few
decades:- Pornography is much more tolerated, prevalent, accessible
and consumed- Abortions are much more common and public sentiment is more
tolerantBoth pornography and abortion (with few exceptions like
rape/incent victims and helath of the mother) are inherently evil. Abortion is
like unto murder and pornography is poison and very destructive. A society that
becomes tolerant of these things is certainly a good sign that morality is in
decline. This study also confirms what was bad in the bad STILL is
bad and is not getting better. However, some things have also gotten worse as
Time Behrend indicated: "[...] modern young adults were more
likely to report having a sexual relationship with a casual date or someone he
or she picked up (44.4 percent compared to 34.5 percent in 1988-96) or with a
friend (68.6 percent, compared to 55.7 percent)."
At 1.96 Standard Deviations,“Yes, morals are worse today than in the
past.”You really believe that?Have we not progressed
from these much more severe acts?Slavery, torture, racism, poor treatment
of women, I could go on and on.If a person thinks pornography and abortion
issues are worse than the ones that I just listed, that is sad. Here is the real irony; the Bible endorses these severe acts.
The sky, it seems, is not falling,and popular media do not always reflect or
influence reality. Yes, sex occurs in college. Among consenting adults. But
it's not nearly as rampant as the prudish want to believe.
Tim, the reporting is accurate. The overall is not changing, but among those who
are sexually active (not all are), the trend is to more casual sexual
Eastern Girl,No, I would say your comment is not supported by the
article.One of the researchers concluded:"For the
most part, they found sexual behavior has been "relatively consistent"
for a quarter century."In other words, my comment is spot on.
To "A Scientist" how can you say that there is no difference when the
study itself shows that there was an increase in pre-marital sex? Re-read the
last paragraph of the story. The study's conclusions don't match
their data. They found that there for casual sex, there was a jump over 10
points in the number of people reporting on casual sex.
Redshirt1701 wrote:"To 'A Scientist' how can you say
that there is no difference when the study itself shows that there was an
increase in pre-marital sex? Re-read the last paragraph of the story. The
study's conclusions don't match their data. They found that there for
casual sex, there was a jump over 10 points in the number of people reporting on
casual sex."How? First, because I understand statistical
significance, just as the researchers do. And second, I am not arrogant enough
to think I can second guess professional researchers when they have been
immersed in their data and I have only seen poorly reported second- or
third-hand summaries.I also know that, if they are wrong, a team of
peers will likely catch it, or another team of researchers will challenge their
findings.And finally, I do not have a religious filter on my outlook
that tells me the world is a horrible, no good, dirty rotten place in dire need
of a Second Coming and a thorough purging of all the heathen. My daily
experience tells me things are not as bad as believers make them out to be.Any more questions?
Disparaging comments and half-truths about the Millennial generation have been
part of the older generation's talking points for awhile now. The truth is
that this generation has more on the ball than the Silent generation or Baby
Boomers ever were. The tirades against the younger generations --without morals,
sex fiends, lazy, without social skills, etc--are simply untrue--they are at
equal levels or appreciably better than the older generations. When the Silent generation and the Baby Boomers have gone on the their just
rewards, I have every confidence that the GenX'ers and Millennials will
overcome the cultural wars, racism, sexism, gay discrimination, and wars for
profit hoisted on them by my generation and my father's. Try to
hold on 'til then youngsters. The world is your oyster.
Isn't it a little obvious that most of the people involved with making
movies about college students have not actually attended college, or even worse,
are just after a quick buck?
What is the prime directive for all living entities on earth: to replace
themselves and perpetuate their species. Males are more sexually
active because the design for them is to spread their seed as far and wide as
possible to ensure diversification of the gene pool. Females are receptive to
that plan and ensure that those offspring will be nurtured and raised to
adulthood. Mix all that with the lack of control of younger humans,
then and you have reality. This is nothing new. It happened in my youth some
68 years ago, and back beyond, and as long as they married before the child was
born no one thought anything about it. Now young people do not have to get
pregnant, thank goodness, and procreation can take a back seat until they are
ready. If you want to end this kind of behavior you will have to change the
programming of the human brain. And I wish you Good Luck doing that.
Interesting that the study considered marriage and regular sexual partners the
same. The moral standard taught in the Judeo-Christian (and and other
religions) culture is chastity before marriage then complete fidelity after
marriage. Psychologically, marriage and regular sexual partners are not the
same. They do not have the same level of commitment, and cohabitation produces
more domestic violence, abuse, poverty, and children growing up without both
biological parents than marriage relationships. Many people see their regular
sexual partner as hooking up/transitory sexual relationship.
Marriage is a full commitment that implies permanence and exclusivity. It
produces better economic outcomes, longer lives, and more satisfaction in life
than cohabitation or singlehood. So I would argue that this study is inherently
flawed, because unless a couple has made the psychological journey that marriage
requires, they have not overtly chosen a permanent commitment. So with less
people choosing marriage and more people not expecting marriage from a sexual
relationship, how does this study show the current college students are not
living in a "hooking-up" culture?(references: Dr. W. Brad
Wilcox and the article in the Harvard Law journal: What is Marriage: Man, Woman
To "The Scientist" but, if you have a 10 point difference, that is not
statistically significant, that would only show that your sample size is
insufficient or that your data collection methods are highly questionable.So, either there is more casual sex going on at college campuses or else
this study is flawed and was designed to calm public outrage.
The article said there was no statistical difference in those that considered
themselves sexually active. However, the article also said this:Article quote: "Of those who reported being sexually active, Monto said
that modern young adults were MORE likely to report having a sexual relationship
with a casual date or someone he or she picked up (44.4 percent compared to 34.5
percent in 1988-96) or with a friend (68.6 percent, compared to 55.7 percent).
They were LESS apt to have a spouse or regular sexual partner (77.1 percent to
84.5 percent in the earlier-era group)." (capitalization added for
emphasis)And yet the study authors concluded there was no
statistical increase in sexual conduct?Does. Not. Compute.If those sexually active in the comparison timeframe were the amount of
"X" and the amount of young adults currently sexually active was also
"X", if there were increases in the number of sexual encounters (which
the study reported above) then there is MORE sexual activity occuring. You
can't use "statistics" to infer anything else, no matter what
posters like "A Scientist" and "Hutterite" say. Period.
@ Whose LifeSo you are saying that Slavery, torture, racism, poor
treatment of women is not as bad as abortion, which is killing an unborn child?
I'm not saying we haven't made progress in many ways. In
many ways, we live in the best of times the earth has every seen. I agree. But in others' ways we've allowed sophisticated arguments to
justify what should only be done in extreme cases. There are times that life
should be taken... but I believe we've gone way past those times in our
decision to allow tens of thousands of deaths a year.
All that reckless abandon during WW2 and then their children had the sexual
revolution (t-party age now) It goes along with being a conservative
belief that the past was better. Psychologists just call it rosy recollection
that our brains tend to dump unpleasant memories faster than good ones.Once you realize that the world doesn't have to get worse, you can plan a
I really feel that this report is bogus. Look where th report comes from and
realize they are from a very very liberal area. It's like the Kinsey
reports back in the late forties early fifties, once the data was evaluated it
was realized what a shame it was. People believe what they want to and reports
usually produce want the payors want reported. Something tells me it is BOGUS
To "redshirt007" but things were better in the past.In the
1950's we not only had a balanced budget, but the national debt was getting
smaller.In the past we had more people obtaining college degrees.In the past we had more people getting married before they had
children.In the past violent crime was lower.In the past
we had greater income equality.In the past civil rights movements
were about actual constitutional rights, not perceived rights.In the
past the US produced enough oil to take care of itself.In the past
there were not jobs that American's wouldn't do.In the
past everybody knew their neighbors.In the past parents raised their
own children, and didn't outsource that responsibility.In the
past sub-prime loans were very rare.Seems like when you look at it,
things were really better in the past. Why not return to those values and
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments