Jesus isn't unique anymore.QuoteVirgin Births Are Surprisingly Common: One in 200 Pregnant Women Claim They Didn't Have Sex
Despite what the preponderance of nativity scenes on display this time of year might suggest, it seems that there's actually a savior born on the regular here in the U.S. New research published in the British Medical Journal finds that (http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f7102) roughly 1 in 200 pregnant young American women claim to be virgins. Researchers looked at a study from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health that followed nearly 8,000 young women from adolescence onward, for 14 years, tracking all sorts of information about their lives, their beliefs, and their reproductive histories. If the women in the study reported having gotten pregnant before reporting having had sexual intercourse, they were counted. Out of 5,340 who reported a pregnancy, 45 claimed to be pregnant without admitting, to researchers at least, that they'd ever had sex.
The characteristics of the pregnant virgins are not surprising in the slightest. They were nearly twice as likely as the pregnant nonvirgins to have taken a pledge to remain abstinent until marriage, a religious ritual that sprung up in the 1990s in the U.S. and spread like wildfire in conservative circles. They were also younger, on average, than their nonvirgin peers, around 19 at the time they gave birth, compared to 22 for the nonvirgins. Parents of virgin mothers, who were also interviewed, reported higher levels of stress and inability to discuss sexual health issues with their children.
Mostly, the study's authors stick to the flat, professional tone of public health researchers, but they did give themselves one opportunity for a bit of cheek:
<blockquote>While more virgins gave birth to boys (59.8%) or may have learnt they were pregnant during Advent, these trends did not reach statistical significance. </blockquote> How on Earth can women think of themselves as "virgins" despite having gone through a pregnancy? Researchers have a few suggestions. The most obvious, based on how many virgin mothers experience "cultural mores highly valuing virginity," is just plain denial. Many young people hear urban legends about girls who got pregnant by sitting on toilet seats (https://www.google.com/search?q=pregnant+from+toilet&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS503US503&oq=pregnant+from+toil&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.4286j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8) or by swimming in pools (http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/swimsperm.asp), and it might just be easier to pretend that's what happened rather than own up to the truth.
Another possibility is that some people have, for whatever reason, decided that penis-in-vagina intercourse is not enough to constitute "losing your virginity." As the researchers point out, "In a study of Canadian college students, 90% considered penile vaginal intercourse with orgasm as 'having sex.' " The other 10 percent did not. This might seem foolish at first, but as historian Hanne Blank pointed out in her book Virgin: The Untouched History (http://www.amazon.com/Virgin-Untouched-History-Hanne-Blank/dp/1596910100), there isn't a medical definition of virginity, so who is and isn't one has always been hotly debated (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/books/chapters/0325-1st-blan.html?pagewanted=all). It's easy to see how people can dismiss an incident of sexual intercourse as "not counting" for a variety of reasons. Maybe it was coerced. Maybe they weren't in love. Maybe they didn't have an orgasm. Maybe it only lasted 30 seconds. Because we give so much cultural weight to the concepts of "virginity" and "having sex," perhaps we've given young people reason to deny that the sex they're having counts as sex. And because of that, we get all these virgin mothers. Hallelujah.
Slate (http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/12/18/_virgin_births_1_in_200_pregnant_women_claim_they_didn_t_have_sex.html?wpisrc=burger_bar)
Some Catholic girls I knew had some interesting work arounds for the no sex before marriage rule.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 18, 2013, 02:31:20 PM
Some Catholic girls I knew had some interesting work arounds for the no sex before marriage rule.
Not many girls insists on this over here. One the things where Quebec rules supreme over North America ;)
On Scrubs a woman got pregnant without sex.
Merely my gaze impregnates women.
Put your gaze back in your pants
It'd be a lot more interesting if they were giving birth to 100% females, and it turns out humans were capable of parthogenesis.
Unfortunately, all the article indicates is that humans are capable of the shittiest, most obvious lies, which is not, strictly speaking, a news story.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 18, 2013, 06:58:53 PM
It'd be a lot more interesting if they were giving birth to 100% females, and it turns out humans were capable of parthogenesis.
Unfortunately, all the article indicates is that humans are capable of the shittiest, most obvious lies, which is not, strictly speaking, a news story.
What I take out of this is that 1 in 200 women are really, really stupid. Which is a severe underestimate.
Quote from: dps on December 18, 2013, 07:09:56 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 18, 2013, 06:58:53 PM
It'd be a lot more interesting if they were giving birth to 100% females, and it turns out humans were capable of parthogenesis.
Unfortunately, all the article indicates is that humans are capable of the shittiest, most obvious lies, which is not, strictly speaking, a news story.
What I take out of this is that 1 in 200 people are really, really stupid. Which is a severe underestimate.
Fixed your post
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 18, 2013, 07:39:54 PM
Quote from: dps on December 18, 2013, 07:09:56 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 18, 2013, 06:58:53 PM
It'd be a lot more interesting if they were giving birth to 100% females, and it turns out humans were capable of parthogenesis.
Unfortunately, all the article indicates is that humans are capable of the shittiest, most obvious lies, which is not, strictly speaking, a news story.
What I take out of this is that 1 in 200 people are really, really stupid. Which is a severe underestimate.
Fixed your post
No, dumbass. The study was specifically about women. You can't draw any conclusions about men from it.
I started to say something along the lines of "Thank God you're not teaching stats" but you teaching English has to be almost as bad.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnewdigital-world.com%2Fattachments%2Ftraders-joking%2F3101d1381388198-traders-joking-keep-calm-everybody-lies.png&hash=903e6ed9229d4f1e179822cd011e1adaaa107f86)
Everybody lies, but it is amazing that one in 200 think they can get away with such a blatent one.
Quote from: dps on December 18, 2013, 07:58:55 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 18, 2013, 07:39:54 PM
Quote from: dps on December 18, 2013, 07:09:56 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 18, 2013, 06:58:53 PM
It'd be a lot more interesting if they were giving birth to 100% females, and it turns out humans were capable of parthogenesis.
Unfortunately, all the article indicates is that humans are capable of the shittiest, most obvious lies, which is not, strictly speaking, a news story.
What I take out of this is that 1 in 200 people are really, really stupid. Which is a severe underestimate.
Fixed your post
No, dumbass. The study was specifically about women. You can't draw any conclusions about men from it.
I started to say something along the lines of "Thank God you're not teaching stats" but you teaching English has to be almost as bad.
Since women are equal in intelligence to men, if 1 in 200 women are that stupid than so are 1 in 200 men.
Here's the study itself.
http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f7102 (http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f7102)
QuoteConclusions Around 0.5% of women consistently affirmed their status as virgins and did not use assisted reproductive technology, yet reported virgin births. Even with numerous enhancements and safeguards to optimize reporting accuracy, researchers may still face challenges in the collection and analysis of self reported data on potentially sensitive topics.
So, 0.5% of women are really nuts. Shouldn't that be higher? ;)
I know we are big on abstinence only sex education but at least they should cover what sex is before they tell you not to do it.
Quote from: Valmy on December 19, 2013, 09:04:41 AM
I know we are big on abstinence only sex education but at least they should cover what sex is before they tell you not to do it.
Might lead to dancing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 19, 2013, 09:08:16 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 19, 2013, 09:04:41 AM
I know we are big on abstinence only sex education but at least they should cover what sex is before they tell you not to do it.
Might lead to dancing.
:lol:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 19, 2013, 07:32:23 AM
Quote from: dps on December 18, 2013, 07:58:55 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 18, 2013, 07:39:54 PM
Quote from: dps on December 18, 2013, 07:09:56 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 18, 2013, 06:58:53 PM
It'd be a lot more interesting if they were giving birth to 100% females, and it turns out humans were capable of parthogenesis.
Unfortunately, all the article indicates is that humans are capable of the shittiest, most obvious lies, which is not, strictly speaking, a news story.
What I take out of this is that 1 in 200 people are really, really stupid. Which is a severe underestimate.
Fixed your post
No, dumbass. The study was specifically about women. You can't draw any conclusions about men from it.
I started to say something along the lines of "Thank God you're not teaching stats" but you teaching English has to be almost as bad.
Since women are equal in intelligence to men, if 1 in 200 women are that stupid than so are 1 in 200 men.
Are you stupid? Men have a greater spread than women.
Believe me, there are plenty of women who've had a penis inside them who can ask with varying degrees of justification, "You call THAT sex?"
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 19, 2013, 09:08:16 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 19, 2013, 09:04:41 AM
I know we are big on abstinence only sex education but at least they should cover what sex is before they tell you not to do it.
Might lead to dancing.
:)
Quote from: Brazen on December 19, 2013, 12:25:31 PM
Believe me, there are plenty of women who've had a penis inside them who can ask with varying degrees of justification, "You call THAT sex?"
Everybody's a critic.
Quote from: Brazen on December 19, 2013, 12:25:31 PM
Believe me, there are plenty of women who've had a penis inside them who can ask with varying degrees of justification, "You call THAT sex?"
:lol:
It reminds me of a line from a movie "I risked getting pregnant for that!"
Quote from: Brazen on December 19, 2013, 12:25:31 PM
Believe me, there are plenty of women who've had a penis inside them who can ask with varying degrees of justification, "You call THAT sex?"
I did what I could with what I was given. :(
Of those 1 in 200, I'd guess a significant portion are just teenage girls.
Quote from: The Brain on December 19, 2013, 12:21:49 PM
Are you stupid? Men have a greater spread than women.
So there are probably more men that are that stupid. Assuming a flatter bell curve.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 19, 2013, 07:32:23 AM
Since women are equal in intelligence to men, if 1 in 200 women are that stupid than so are 1 in 200 men.
Doesn't necessarily work like that.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 19, 2013, 07:20:41 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 19, 2013, 12:21:49 PM
Are you stupid? Men have a greater spread than women.
So there are probably more men that are that stupid. Assuming a flatter bell curve.
Exactly.
M
Quote from: Legbiter on December 19, 2013, 08:44:00 AM
Here's the study itself.
http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f7102 (http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f7102)
QuoteConclusions Around 0.5% of women consistently affirmed their status as virgins and did not use assisted reproductive technology, yet reported virgin births. Even with numerous enhancements and safeguards to optimize reporting accuracy, researchers may still face challenges in the collection and analysis of self reported data on potentially sensitive topics.
So, 0.5% of women are really nuts. Shouldn't that be higher? ;)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi0.kym-cdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Foriginal%2F000%2F155%2F594%2Fyesitis2.gif%3F1311943181&hash=cd4d1b86cd6fef458fa473f244e3049c94a4fdf1)
:lol: