Listen up, virgins - have sex, or else!

[Fhqwghads]

Losing virginity early or late tied to health risks
Study: Younger and older starters have more problems in sexual function

NEW YORK - People who start having sex at a younger or older than average age appear to be at greater risk of developing sexual health problems later in life, a new study suggests.

The findings, according to researchers, cast some doubts on the benefits of abstinence-only sexual education that has been introduced in U.S. public schools.

Using data from a 1996 cross-sectional survey of more than 8,000 U.S. adults, the researchers found that those who started having sex at a relatively young age were more likely to have certain risk factors for sexually transmitted diseases (STD) — including a high number of sexual partners and a history of having sex under the influence of alcohol.

On the other hand, both "early" and "late" starters were at increased risk of problems in sexual function. This was true primarily of men, whose problems included difficulty maintaining an erection and reaching orgasm.

The findings are published in the American Journal of Public Health.

It's not clear from the survey why both early and late starters tend to have more sexual dysfunction, according to the researchers, led by Dr. Theo G.M. Sandfort of Columbia University in New York City.

But the findings, they write, "only partially support" abstinence-only sex education — which encourages teenagers to save sex for marriage.

"Although our findings support an association between early initiation and long-term (STD) risk, they also suggest a more complicated picture of sexual functioning," Sandfort and his colleagues write.

Delaying sexual activity may "create health risks by impeding development of the emotional, cognitive, and interpersonal skills that are crucial to satisfactory sexual functioning and general well-being," they add.

On average, respondents said they had sex for the first time around the ages of 17 or 18. Those who had their first sexual encounter at average age of 14 were considered "early starters" and those who started at age 22 or older were considered "later starters."

It's not possible to determine cause-and-effect from the survey data, according to the researchers. For example, young men with sexual problems may start having intercourse at a later age, contributing to the link between later sexual "debut" and higher odds of sexual dysfunction.

However, Sandfort's team adds, the findings lend credence to other studies suggesting that abstinence-only education may actually increase the risk of certain health problems.

"Sexual education that is more supportive and acknowledges the diverse needs of young people might prevent the negative outcomes observed here," the researchers write.

Better score while the scorin's good, or your moisty bits or floppy parts might not work.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22101182

[Kuya]

Science pulls through for me once again!
edit: cough up the sex now people
edit: where's niro, i bet demo would like to join in on this

[netz]

Time to kill myself now.

[Charla]

It's cool, I probably wasn't planning on living that long anyway.

[aurik]

correlation != causality. People who start their sex life later might do so because of sexual dysfunction, rather than the other way around.

I love how the author of the news article feels this point is insignificant enough to put in the bottom 10% of the article.

[Kuya]

correlation != causality. People who start their sex life later might do so because of sexual dysfunction, rather than the other way around.

I love how the author of the news article feels this point is insignificant enough to put in the bottom 10% of the article.

Aurik... you're ruining it... Plus, i'll take anything to make the local gov stop with their abstinence onry campaign. Logic doesn't seem to work, so i suppose using reactonist stuff might.

[Charla]

Plus, i'll take anything to make the local gov stop with their abstinence onry campaign. Logic doesn't seem to work...

Logic never works when morality, religion, and/or sexuality are involved. Haven't you figured that out by now?

[Kuya]

Plus, i'll take anything to make the local gov stop with their abstinence onry campaign. Logic doesn't seem to work...

Logic never works when morality, religion, and/or sexuality are involved. Haven't you figured that out by now?

Exactly, so i should think sexual dysfunction should get the ball rolling. So to speak.

[thestalkmore]

correlation != causality. People who start their sex life later might do so because of sexual dysfunction, rather than the other way around.

I love how the author of the news article feels this point is insignificant enough to put in the bottom 10% of the article.

Obviously a virgin.

[evilbau]

correlation != causality. People who start their sex life later might do so because of sexual dysfunction, rather than the other way around.

I love how the author of the news article feels this point is insignificant enough to put in the bottom 10% of the article.

article never says that it causes. It uses the correct language: "appear to be at greater risk", "tied to health risks", "Younger and older starters have more problems in sexual function". The researchers admit the limitations of the study and the journalist who wrote the article words it carefully too. :/

can't read the report (here: http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/AJPH.2006.097444v1), but i read the abstract (http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstrac ... 6.097444v1)

Objectives. We explored long-term health correlates of age at sexual initiation and of abstinence until marriage.

Methods. We analyzed data from the 1996 National Sexual Health Survey, a cross-sectional study of the US adult population. We compared sexual health outcomes among individuals who had initiated sexual activity at an early or late age versus a normative age. We also compared individuals whose first sexual intercourse had occurred before versus after marriage.

Results. Early initiation of sexual intercourse was associated with various sexual risk factors, including increased numbers of sexual partners and recent sexual intercourse under the influence of alcohol, whereas late initiation was associated with fewer risk factors. However, both early and late initiation were associated with sexual problems such as problems with arousal and orgasm, primarily among men. Relationship solidity and sexual relationship satisfaction were not associated with early or late initiation.

Conclusions. Early sexual debut is associated some certain long-term negative sexual health outcomes, including increased sexual risk behaviors and problems in sexual functioning. Late initiation was also associated with sexual problems, especially among men. Further research is needed to understand how sexual initiation patterns affect later health outcomes.

Key Words: Adolescent Health, Gender, HIV/AIDS, Sexual Health, Surveys

Pretty clear to me that the article and the study didn't identify causes but put forth some theories that require additional study.

[aurik]

If you say "X appears to put you at greater risk for Y", then you have just presented the situation in a causality relationship. "Most subjects with X also Y" would be the correct way to put it but when you actually fill in the blanks, it makes the conclusion of the study sound like a grand waste of a government grant to prove the obvious.

[evilbau]

If you say "X appears to put you at greater risk for Y", then you have just presented the situation in a causality relationship. "Most subjects with X also Y" would be the correct way to put it but when you actually fill in the blanks, it makes the conclusion of the study sound like a grand waste of a government grant to prove the obvious.

wow, okay, you are harsh. I think you just wanted to say correlation != causation because my reading of that article does not say that and even goes out of its way to point out no conclusions about causes were made.

To me this study seems amazingly cheap because all they did was analyze (look deeper into) data collected in 1996.

[Khamsin]

If you say "X appears to put you at greater risk for Y", then you have just presented the situation in a causality relationship. "Most subjects with X also Y" would be the correct way to put it but when you actually fill in the blanks, it makes the conclusion of the study sound like a grand waste of a government grant to prove the obvious.

Wouldn't the "greater risk" part mean "most subjects"? Afterall, generally speaking, risk is determined by seeing what percentage of subjects that meet condition X also meet condition Y. So saying "Most subjects that meet condition X also meet condition Y" should be the same as saying "In the subjects tested, those that met condition X appeared to be at greater risk for condition Y or vice versa", right?

Unless there's an extra step of testing that should be done in risk assessment that was lacking here.

[aurik]

If you say "X appears to put you at greater risk for Y", then you have just presented the situation in a causality relationship.

my reading of that article does not say that

That's odd, the leading sentence is "People who start having sex at a younger or older than average age appear to be at greater risk of developing sexual health problems later in life".

[evilbau]

If you say "X appears to put you at greater risk for Y", then you have just presented the situation in a causality relationship.

my reading of that article does not say that

That's odd, the leading sentence is "People who start having sex at a younger or older than average age appear to be at greater risk of developing sexual health problems later in life".

That doesn't say anything about having sex younger or older as causing the sexual health problems. They analyzed data from 1996 and determined "People who start having sex at a younger or older than average age appear to be at greater risk of developing sexual health problems later in life." You are the one who is reading causality into it.

[aurik]

If you say "X appears to put you at greater risk for Y", then you have just presented the situation in a causality relationship.

my reading of that article does not say that

That's odd, the leading sentence is "People who start having sex at a younger or older than average age appear to be at greater risk of developing sexual health problems later in life".

That doesn't say anything about having sex younger or older as causing the sexual health problems. They analyzed data from 1996 and determined "People who start having sex at a younger or older than average age appear to be at greater risk of developing sexual health problems later in life." You are the one who is reading causality into it.

So having lung cancer appears to put you at greater risk of being a smoker? And if you have a car wreck on New Years Eve you are at greater risk of having a drinking problem? If the statement really wasn't loaded with causality and merely established correlation then these statements should be perfectly logical, but they aren't.

[Kuya]

"People who start having sex at a younger or older than average age appear to be at greater risk of developing sexual health problems later in life."

So having lung cancer appears to put you at greater risk of being a smoker?

Aurik, are you reading it as, sexual health problems lead to having sex at a younger or older age?

[aurik]

"People who start having sex at a younger or older than average age appear to be at greater risk of developing sexual health problems later in life."

[quote:8uquszm1]So having lung cancer appears to put you at greater risk of being a smoker?

Aurik, are you reading it as, sexual health problems lead to having sex at a younger or older age?[/quote:8uquszm1]

The more correct interpretation of the study would be:
"Factors that cause sexual health problems later in life may also be related to when virginity is first lost".

But this is a no brainer, really.

[evilbau]

So having lung cancer appears to put you at greater risk of being a smoker? And if you have a car wreck on New Years Eve you are at greater risk of having a drinking problem? If the statement really wasn't loaded with causality and merely established correlation then these statements should be perfectly logical, but they aren't.

This is where we stop having a discussion and you dig in your heels to avoid being wrong. Based on past threads I honestly believe you won't admit that you simply interpreted it as causation where the text does not suggest that but I'll indulge you.

Lung cancer and the car wreck in your analogy is the outcome studied much like sexual problems. Your analogy would be like saying sexual problems puts you at a greater risk of having sex earlier or later. Certainly a valid hypothesis (if weirdly worded), but not exactly what the study was for; their objective was clearly stated:

Objectives. We explored long-term health correlates of age at sexual initiation and of abstinence until marriage.

Their objective wasn't even to find causes. They wanted to find correlations between the two variables (age of sexual initiation, and sufferers of sexual health problems). In their conclusions they state they think "Further research is needed to understand how sexual initiation patterns affect later health outcomes." Here is where you could say they are reaching for causation, but I read that as they want to explore this hypothesis in future studies. They crunched numbers and found a correlation and want to study it more. You are parsing words.

[Kuya]

"People who start having sex at a younger or older than average age appear to be at greater risk of developing sexual health problems later in life."

[quote:222w4rvv]So having lung cancer appears to put you at greater risk of being a smoker?

Aurik, are you reading it as, sexual health problems lead to having sex at a younger or older age?

The more correct interpretation of the study would be:
"Factors that cause sexual health problems later in life may also be related to when virginity is first lost".

But this is a no brainer, really.[/quote:222w4rvv]
I can see how you can get the idea that it implies a causation, but i think you're reading too much into it.