Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The small sample is not statistically significant. The experimental design is flawed.
The findings are worthless. The questions were leading.
The findings are not useless because study after study after study corroborates and verifies the results. I have yet to see a credible scientific study debunking any of what I've posted. I've looked. The best I've been able to find has been random unsubstantiated opinions.
Quote:
No one uses the phrase "Hook up in a study without giving a comprehensive definition of the meaning and behaviors.
I'm kind of doubting that "hook up" was the phrase used in questioning. On the odd chance that is
Quote:
The study is garbage. There are really no findings to refute.
Why so bothered?? There are findings. Lots of them. Is it that you don't like the results?
Let's imagine for a moment that 74% of Americans were addicted to heroine. That's when you start to see the whole "everybody's doing it, so how can it be wrong?" mentality kicking in. With usage at those levels, it becomes the new social norm. I promise you that if heroine useage was that commonplace, you would have a lot of people insisting that it's completely harmless. Many would even claim it is beneficial, giving them an edge in their daily lives and that responsible use allows them to excel in their respective careers. But does that actually mean the heroine is harmless or even possibly good for you?
As it so happens, about 74% of 19 year old single women polled have already sexually experienced. That number is up from about 6% in 1900. (My apologies but for whatever reason, nobody bothered tracking the men over the same time period ... at least insofar as I'm aware. When only 6% of the female population was engaging in premarital sex before age 19, obviously premarital sex was taboo and regarded as a serious danger to society. But with a majority of people engaging in premarital sex very early in life, the notion that it is harmful seems like just so much nonsense -- exactly like my heroine example.
It does not necessarily follow that "everybody's doing it" means that a certain set of behaviors is harmless.
Quote:
Ps- I do not think women need to be married to have children. We do not need your permission. We only need your sperm. Women have been raising their children without a partner for centuries. As long as the woman is not forced into having children she does not want, I see no issue.
Early research of single-parent homes focused on “father absence” (FA). The interest
in FA homes was due to the large number of single-parent female headed households and
to the influence of psychoanalytic theories that called attention to the importance of the presence
of a father in the development of a child’s personality (Hetherington et al., 1983). In a
1970 literature review, Biller reported evidence showing a correlation between FA and juvenile
delinquency. He also showed evidence that FA boys have more difficulty forming peer
relationships and long lasting heterosexual relationships as compared to boys raised in a father
present (FP) home. Chapman (1977) reported lower SAT scores among FA males compared
to FP males, and Bain et al. (1983) showed that FA third graders performed significantly
worse in reading achievement and scored lower in a measure of internal locus of control than
FP children. In 1984, Fry and Scher found evidence suggesting poor ego development, low
motivation, and an external locus of control among ten year-old children from FA homes.
Daniels (1986), in her study of young African American men, discovered that the length of
father absence from the home was the strongest predictor of future employment for the young
men. In a more recent study, Mandara and Murray (2006) reported that boys raised in FA
homes were much more likely to use drugs than were boys from FP homes
I get that it is not always possible to have both parents. There are all sorts of things that derail this more ideal scenario. But the thing that really needs to change is men: We the men need to man up and be fathers to our children. Every single mother I've ever known feels overwhelmed and wishes she had more help with the kids. There might be some real-life single mothers who prefer going it alone like you've said, but I've never actually met one. But intentionally going it alone is being intentionally unfair to your children. Given the choice, if you're giving your children the very best chance you want to have both parents raising them. The data verifying this is overwhelming.
Like I already said, through Christ and sheer grit and determination, you can overcome anything. But it's nice to not have to overcome the odds being stacked against you. Better to have them stacked in your favor whenever possible.
Why so bothered?? There are findings. Lots of them. Is it that you don't like the results?
I am bothered by pseudo science. I am bothered by poor methodology. I am bothered by poorly designed study. I am bothered when these things are disguised as results to be taken seriously.
Honestly. The study is garbage whether I agree with the premise or not.
There is nothing to debunk with junk science. Any first year student in rat lab could do better.
I am bothered by pseudo science. I am bothered by poor methodology. I am bothered by poorly designed study. I am bothered when these things are disguised as results to be taken seriously.
Honestly. The study is garbage whether I agree with the premise or not.
There is nothing to debunk with junk science. Any first year student in rat lab could do better.
If it is so easily debunked, then by all means do so. You even have the majority bias in your favor -- Americans desperately want to believe that premarital sex is harmless because over 90% of them engaged in it. So surely there must be scholarly studies showing that premarital sex is highly beneficial ... or at the very least harmless, right? So by all means, go find proof and share it with the rest of us!
What you seem to be doing is knee-jerk reacting emotionally. How you feel about things is irrelevant. I could honestly believe that murdering my family in their sleep right now is a good thing and that the survival of the human race depends on it. No matter how strongly I feel about it, it doesn't magically become a good idea.
Likewise, if something is harmful it doesn't matter one bit how desperately we want to believe that it is harmless. Study after study after study has been done and they keep finding the same thing: Premarital sex is doing real measurable harm. You're disbelief is irrelevant.
If it is so easily debunked, then by all means do so. You even have the majority bias in your favor -- Americans desperately want to believe that premarital sex is harmless because over 90% of them engaged in it. So surely there must be scholarly studies showing that premarital sex is highly beneficial ... or at the very least harmless, right? So by all means, go find proof and share it with the rest of us!
What you seem to be doing is knee-jerk reacting emotionally. How you feel about things is irrelevant. I could honestly believe that murdering my family in their sleep right now is a good thing and that the survival of the human race depends on it. No matter how strongly I feel about it, it doesn't magically become a good idea.
Likewise, if something is harmful it doesn't matter one bit how desperately we want to believe that it is harmless. Study after study after study has been done and they keep finding the same thing: Premarital sex is doing real measurable harm. You're disbelief is irrelevant.
You are not reading what you are being told. The complaint is not the results but the methodology. Bad methodology means that a study has little or no value. A properly conducted study could end up with the same result or a different one but we will not know. If it was done properly then it could also be repeated by other researchers.
As there was a small sample size and leading questions etc the final take away is not that the results are wrong or that the results go against any one persons viewpoint but that the results are not trustworthy. It takes time and money to conduct a proper survey so simply telling someone to conduct their own is unreasonable.
To use an example of a poor study that is off topic the first study to determine the danger of rabies and bats found that 50% of bats carried rabies. People became scared of bats. Then it became known that the study consisted of only 32 bats so that made it very questionable. Furthermore the study was done on bats found dead. Bats die quickly from rabies therefore one would expect a higher % of dead bats to have rabies than live bats and further studies confirmed this. The people who questioned the original study did not do so because they were bias towards bats but because the study was very poorly constructed. That is the point that posters are making, the study does not appear to be fairly constructed and if that is the case it has little value regardless of your or my beliefs.
If it is so easily debunked, then by all means do so. You even have the majority bias in your favor -- Americans desperately want to believe that premarital sex is harmless because over 90% of them engaged in it. So surely there must be scholarly studies showing that premarital se.
You are basing your premise on a poorly designed study. I do not need to share proof of anything.
You are trying to put lipstick on a pig, and all of the fancy but meaningless diagrams does not change it.
What journal published this rubbish? This is not PHD level research. You are defending the indefensible.
Your bias is showing just like this bogus study. I actually read the whole thing. I highly recommend it.
PS- Research and scientific method hardly knee jerk.
Last edited by RonkonkomaNative; 03-03-2015 at 11:30 PM..
Reason: adding
You are basing your premise on a poorly designed study. I do not need to share proof of anything.
Probably because you have none because there is none. I'm backing up what I'm saying and you've decided that my sources aren't good enough or are flawed or whatever. So I ask you to provide sources to show me that I'm wrong and you refuse.
I'm left to conclude that you're just going to keep poking and prodding me to run off and find "proof", doing all the work while you do nothing. Maybe you've decided to intentionally waste my time just because you think it's fun. But whatever the case, you apparently have no interest in bringing any real facts to the discussion.
Quote:
What journal published this rubbish? This is not PHD level research. You are defending the indefensible.
I cannot claim to be a respected social scientist with a PHD and deep familiarity with what is or is not a respectable source. I've done my best to muddle through it. The studies I've linked are, insofar as I can tell, the work of PHD's spanning several decades. I've looked and looked and never found any credible study that concluded that premarital was a good thing and a boon to society. I've seen a few things on both sides with so much hypothetical bias, it's laughable. But scientists who had no particular agenda all seem to come to the same conclusions: That premarital sex can and does do measurable harm while all the presumed benefits of premarital sex turned out to be nonexistent.
Quote:
Your bias is showing just like this bogus study. I actually read the whole thing. I highly recommend it.
Yet you haven't even demonstrated that anything I've said is wrong. "I read the whole thing" doesn't tell us anything. Which link did you read in its entirety? What are you saying is wrong with it? "This bogus study" doesn't help since I linked several studies. Do share.
Quote:
PS- Research and scientific method hardly knee jerk.
So do you refute the findings? Do you think women who have children out of wedlock are more likely to stay married? What is the issues that you have with the information here?
Is this study about having sex sans marriage or having children sans marriage?
As it so happens, about 74% of 19 year old single women polled have already sexually experienced. That number is up from about 6% in 1900.
.
Betcha a big fat dime that 6% is only how many admitted it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
