About 95% of U.S. Residents Have Premarital Sex, Guttmacher Report Says
About 95% of U.S. residents have premarital sex by age 44, according to a Guttmacher Institute report published Tuesday in the January/February issue of Public Health Reports, the AP/Chicago Tribune reports (Crary, AP/Chicago Tribune, 12/19). Lawrence Finer, director of domestic research at the Guttmacher Institute, and colleagues used statistics from the 1982, 1988, 1995 and 2002 CDC National Survey of Family Growth, which asked about 40,000 U.S. residents ages 15 to 44 about their sexual behavior (Jayson, USA Today, 12/20). About 33,000 of people who were surveyed were women. The study found that 99% of the respondents said they had sex by age 44 and 95% had done so before marriage. In addition, the study found that women were as likely as men to engage in premarital sex. According to Finer, at least 91% of women born between 1950 and 1978 said they had premarital sex by age 30, and 88% of women born in the 1940s said they had premarital sex prior to age 44 (AP/Chicago Tribune, 12/19). Finer said the margin of error in the report is less than one percentage point (USA Today, 12/20). "The data clearly show that the majority of older teens and adults have already had sex before marriage, which calls into question the federal government's funding of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs for 12- to 29-year-olds," Finer said, adding, "It would be more effective to provide young people with the skills and information they need to be safe once they become sexually active -- which nearly everyone eventually will." Wade Horn -- assistant secretary for children and families at HHS' Administration for Children and Families -- said, "One of [the agency's] values is to help young people delay the onset of sexual activity" because "[t]he longer one delays, the fewer lifetime sex partners they have and the less the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases" (AP/Chicago Tribune, 12/19). Pat Fagan, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said the release of the study late in the year is "part of a major congressional battle about to start in January and February ... to get rid of abstinence funding." Finer said he had no control over when the study was published (USA Today, 12/20).
Maybe Kinsey was right after all.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Well, until some laws get changed, all my sex will be pre-marital. Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
I saw this yesterday, and I'm not sure I believe the numbers. 95% is awfully high.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
95%? I have a hard time believing that. Not that I have a problem with it if it is true. If you are stupid enough to sleep around you deserve whatever diseases you wind up with. Darwinism in action.
The only woman I ever slept with is my wife, but we did start well before marriage.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Stephan: Then you're in the 95%.
BTW, does civil union sex count as pre-marital for the purpose of their study? (not that it would be more than a stastical blip at this point since civil unions are only in 3 states and haven't been around long...)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Based on my own anecdotal evidence, that's about right.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
So, be good, for goodness sake. Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
ya, I agree with Tom. Or maybe 95% is a little low.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Premarital Sex != Huge Effing Slut
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Drat, I lumped myself in the 5% group when I got married in July. Had I known marriage followed by sex was untrendy I might have reconsidered. I can only be awkward dinner conversation now whenever sex comes up.
But 95% does seem to me to be quite high. But then again the last 100 years has definitely seen a big shift towards that trend, I just didn't think it was that big.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: Premarital Sex != Huge Effing Slut
Worth repeating.
-pH
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
This isn't surprising at all. However, everybody from my parents' church tries to tell people that it's about 50/50. Denial?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But then again the last 100 years has definitely seen a big shift towards that trend, I just didn't think it was that big.
Check the article again.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: Premarital Sex != Huge Effing Slut
Worth repeating.
-pH
So my wife is a slut even though I am the only man she has ever slept with?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
!= means "Not Equal"
(and funny enough, it's pronounced "Bang Equal")
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Stephan, that's a "does not equal."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Stephan, Is that a serious question or are you playing Mr. I Don't Get It today?
If it's the first, != means doesn't equal.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Ah! Not up on netspeak, or math symbols, or whatever it is.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:But then again the last 100 years has definitely seen a big shift towards that trend, I just didn't think it was that big.
Check the article again.
I did, and the furthest back it goes is the 1950's, thats still not the 100 years I mentioned.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
So many snarky comments.
So little time.
The joke used to be, 50% of US Population admits to premarital sex. The other 50% lie.
Now its 95% of US Population admits to premarital sex. Of that group, 45% lie.
or
95% of US Population admit to premarital sex. 5% of US Population plays D&D.
or
95% of US Population admit to premarital sex. Only 58% admit having it with a partner. Only 14% admit to having it with a partner in reality as compared to cyber, via text messaging, or as part of a video game.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Has anyone found the actual study on the site?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, The numbers haven't experienced a big shift for the entire time period we know about them. Do you have any evidence that such a shift actually occurred in the past hundred years?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Drat, I lumped myself in the 5% group when I got married in July
You only move into the 5% on the day you turn 44, and haven't had premarital sex. Just because someone gets married does not mean they won't have premarital sex for the rest of their life.
I myself doubt the numbers, unless there is a "of those who are able" qualifier (I'm too lazy to check). Seems like the number of Americans too physically or mentally disabled to have sex would skew the numbers.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think it does, unless you're using "premarital" to denote "nonmarital" (and include "extramarital").
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I think it does, unless you're using "premarital" to denote "nonmarital" (and include "extramarital").
If you are married, get divorced, and then have sex with someone else, I'd classify that as "pre-marital".
Perhaps I'm using a different definition. I take it to mean "before you are married to the person you are sleeping with".
By a strictly literal definition, someone who never gets married, and has sex with multiple partners, has never had "pre-marital" sex.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
At first I thought that title read: "95% of U.S. Presidents..."
I had heard something about Washington having had wooden teeth, but...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, The numbers haven't experienced a big shift for the entire time period we know about them. Do you have any evidence that such a shift actually occurred in the past hundred years?
Oh not at all, thats just a perception on my part. It stands on no hard data.
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
quote:Originally posted by skillery: At first I thought that title read: "95% of U.S. Presidents..."
I had heard something about Washington having had wooden teeth, but...
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: By a strictly literal definition, someone who never gets married, and has sex with multiple partners, has never had "pre-marital" sex.
Exactly. I typically use "nonmarital" for that very reason, since it isn't at all clear that I'll ever get married. Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Well, until some laws get changed, all my sex will be pre-marital.
Hooray!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
haven't looked at it yet. I assume it will define how they use 'premarital sex', which is key.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Is it premarital sex if you never get married?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: This study examined the proportion of individuals in various cohorts who had had premarital sex (defined as either having had vaginal intercourse before first marrying or ever having had intercourse and never having married) by various ages.
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
It does say that 85% of ever-married women had sex before getting married.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Is it premarital sex if you never get married?
ohhhh true story,
How come nobody ever talks about "postmarital sex?"
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I thought they only interviewed like 40,000 people, the grand majority of which were women.
Doesn't really seem statistically right to extrapolate that to 300 million people.
quote:How come nobody ever talks about "postmarital sex?"
What's that?
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
Quickly skimming the first couple pages, only vaginal sex is covered by this study.
Pre-marital sexers (95%) =
1) people who had had sex before marrying (but had then married) 2) people who have had sex and had not married at the time of the study
Others (5%) = 1) people who had sex for the first time during or after the month they were married 2) unmarried virgins
quote:In the current analysis, an event was deined as having sex for the first time before ever having married. Individuals whose month of first sex was earlier than their month of irst marriage, or who had had sex but had not married by the time of interview, were considered to have experienced the event. Those who had had sex for the irst time in the same month as (or after) their irst marriage and those who had neither had sex nor married contributed their months of nonexperience of the event to the analysis and were “censored” at the time of marriage (for those who had married) or at the time of interview (for those who had not married), since they ceased to be at risk of the event at that point. I then calculated the proportion of individuals who had had premarital sex by each age, or event curves, using Kaplan-Meier life-19table rocedures. For comparison, I also calculated proportions for the occurrence of sex (premarital or otherwise) and marriage.
The language of the study is a bit complicated, so I'm not sure I parsed that entirely correctly.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I suspect that that 95% is higher than the percentage of those having post-marital sex.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I thought they only interviewed like 40,000 people, the grand majority of which were women.
Doesn't really seem statistically right to extrapolate that to 300 million people.
The 2002 study (on which the results are partly based) was on 7,643 women and 4,928 men. Statistically, samples this size are fairly good predictors of whole populations.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: I suspect that that 95% is higher than the percentage of those having post-marital sex.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lyrhawn: erm... you realize some people actually have sex after they are married without having done it beforehand? I've heard it said that sometimes people even continue to have sex after marriage.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If the numbers are correct, I'm pleased that we have a full 5% not engaging in extramarital sex.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I would only call something "postmarital sex" if it happens after somebody is no longer married.
I would call sex between a husband and wife mariatal sex.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
They define it as vaginal sex? Does that mean lesbians can have pre-marital sex and gay men can't?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Isn't anyone interested in what constitutes sex?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Irami: it all depends on what the definition of "is" is.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Marital, postmortem, same thing.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
woo! the corpse descration jokes come out!
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: They define it as vaginal sex? Does that mean lesbians can have pre-marital sex and gay men can't?
I think they have a stricter definition of what constitutes vaginal sex that would also nix lesbian sex. I am not sure.
Although they cite somebody named Manlove J, Papillio, the study doesn't seem to make note of homosexual behavior at all. This is probably because the surveys (National Survey of Family Health) didn't account for it also, but I don't know.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Nato -
Did they poll the people about anything other than their location and gender? Did they ask them their religious views? Just curious, because those things I think would skew the finale results.
Blackblade -
Yes I know, the joke you made there was the one I was (apparently only attempting) making too.
mph -
I always thought that to mean that the post- referred to the actual ceremony.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:They define it as vaginal sex? Does that mean lesbians can have pre-marital sex and gay men can't?
I think there's a silent "penis" in "vaginal sex."
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
actually.. of that 5%.. I wonder how many are gay... or got married at a very young age. (young enough that the temptation+opportunity for premartial sex just wasn't there)
My previous snarky comment aside, it looks like they're saying only heterosexual sex counts for the purposes of their study.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
They define it as vaginal sex or intercourse before marriage, which pretty much covers it.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I would imagine that that's exactly what they're saying, given they used 'sex' to mean 'vaginal intercourse'. Which, as Dag mentioned, implicitly also requires a penis.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Either that or they don't believe that homosexuals are actual Residents of the United States.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I always thought that to mean that the post- referred to the actual ceremony.
That would be post-wedding but not necessarily post-marriage.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Post marriage ceremony.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Come to think of it, aren't gays about 5% of the population? Which would mean... Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
heheheh...they said Post.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I just saw Beavis and Butt-head Do America on DVD in a store for less than CDN$10. I thought about buying it.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: it looks like they're saying only heterosexual sex counts for the purposes of their study.
So... are you saying most lesbians/gays have never experienced heterosexual sex? Most of the ones I have talked with or read about, at some time in their life "tried" it the other way, at least once. Or were bi. So I don't think this is excluding as many as you would think..
FG
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Most.. mm... I dunno.. I've known plenty of Gold Star lesbians. But yes, a goodly number of otherwise exclusively gay people need time to figure it out.
But there's also the issue of young people getting married. My lil brother got married at 19. When I was 19, for the purposes of this study, I had never had pre-martial sex. If I had gotten married at that age, I would have qualified for the 5%.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I think it does, unless you're using "premarital" to denote "nonmarital" (and include "extramarital").
And this was how I was hearing it on the news this morning. That the study showed 95% of all adult Americans had had sex outside of marriage. Now, it could be that the deejay or reporter or whoever reading the story misread it, or maybe they were reading a script that had been paraphrased, but that's what I originally got. 95% having had sex outside of the bounds of marriage I can certainly contemplate. 95% having had specifically premarital sex? not so easy to digest.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Either that or they don't believe that homosexuals are actual Residents of the United States.
Unfortunately, it's hard to count homosexual pre-marital sex, seeing as how there are no gay marriages beforehand to use in terms of this study.
My guess is that the statistic would be relatively similar for homosexual people.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Goody Scrivener:
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I think it does, unless you're using "premarital" to denote "nonmarital" (and include "extramarital").
And this was how I was hearing it on the news this morning. That the study showed 95% of all adult Americans had had sex outside of marriage. Now, it could be that the deejay or reporter or whoever reading the story misread it, or maybe they were reading a script that had been paraphrased, but that's what I originally got. 95% having had sex outside of the bounds of marriage I can certainly contemplate. 95% having had specifically premarital sex? not so easy to digest.
Wait, by saying "sex outside the bounds of marriage," does that include extramarital sex, i.e. affairs? If that's the case, wouldn't that be worse than sex before marriage?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I have a hard time believing that all of the respondents understood the question in the same way.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I think there's a silent "penis" in "vaginal sex."
As opposed to the loud "penis" in "anal sex."
*whistles his own post*
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I'm in the middle of making latkes (*rubs belly*), so I can't look at the study; but Lyr has a good point. Does anyone know how the sampling was done? I'd love it if Bob could come in and give us his take on the methods used.
Posted by Dav (Member # 8217) on :
One problem with this study is that it considers sexual experience as a binary yes or no value.
Just knowing a person has had premarital sex tells you next to nothing about how generally chaste he or she is.
For example, all these four people would count as a yes:
A) A shy and awkward 16 year old has fumbling sex once with another teen, but never has sex again the rest of his or her life due to extreme shyness.
B) Someone has sex once at 18, but then waits until finding Mr/Mrs Right at age 25 to have sex again (after the ceremony).
C) A 21 year old has sex for the first time, finds he or she likes it, and so spends the next 20 years getting a different partner in bed nearly every night.
D) A 30 year old virgin meets the love of his or her life, gets engaged, has sex with his or her fiance, and after marriage remains 100% faithful.
Drawing a conclusion from this study that people should just forget about encouraging abstinence because 95% do it anyway is a bit premature.
Persons B and D in my example may well have been much more chaste because they were influenced by the ideal of abstinence, even if they didn't meet it 100%.
How many people in the study fell into these categories of sexual frequency? We have no idea. And that really limits how useful the study is.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
This reminds me of an old joke:
MAN #1: This study says that 95% admit to premarital sex. How disgusting! Well, I never had sex with my wife before we were married. What about you.
MAN #2: I don't know. What was her maiden name?
Posted by crescentsss (Member # 9494) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dav: Drawing a conclusion from this study that people should just forget about encouraging abstinence because 95% do it anyway is a bit premature.
Why should we encourage abstinence in the first place???
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by crescentsss:
quote:Originally posted by Dav: Drawing a conclusion from this study that people should just forget about encouraging abstinence because 95% do it anyway is a bit premature.
Why should we encourage abstinence in the first place???
Because sex outside wedlock "destroys society."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
As much as I disagree with abstinence-only education, I don't actually think this particular study discredits it. (I am assuming here that the purpose of such education is to discourage premarital sex.) If the study used a really representative population, then it should have included a very large majority who did not receive abstinence-only education; therefore, it is not yet shown that people will have lots of premarital sex in spite of such education. If you limited the study to people who did receive such education, then you could discredit it. In fact, I think that's been done. But this particular study does not show that abstinence-only fails at its intended purpose.
Posted by Dav (Member # 8217) on :
In case anyone misunderstands my previous post, I'm not personally in favor of an "abstinence-only" sex-ed policy. I think it's important for people to understand birth control and prophylactics, as well as abstinence.
My point is that the study says almost nothing about how effective or ineffective encouraging abstinence is at changing sexual behavior. And yet, many people seem to be drawing conclusions from it about exactly that.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
This band-wagoning is so typical of the Left, the minority masquerading as a majority with the 'facts' to back it up.
It reminds me of those who point to the dissolution of half of all marriages as proof that marriage is a dated concept, until you look at those who are divorced getting remarried at double the rate of the single. Clearly marriage is not out to those who have experienced it, they are just learning from mistakes and finding opportunities and people that are better suited to them. Divorce making stronger marriges...
I personally have nothing against premarital sex, a person is either trained or untrained, a seventeen year old in a car wreck is paralyzed by shock, an eighteen year old soldier calls in a precise nine line medivac after an attack, the difference is training. I think it is sad that we idealize two fumbling klutzes trying to make the fireworks happen, I think if everyone has the basic skills then performance is more of an indication of true vocation then mere skill. If I had their numbers I would call the guys my wife practiced on and thank them for the finished product I received.
But that is me...
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: This band-wagoning is so typical of the Left, the minority masquerading as a majority with the 'facts' to back it up.
Yeah, damn those pesky "statistics" and "studies." Who needs 'em?
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
There's lies, damn lies! and then there's Statistics...
M Twain
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: There's lies, damn lies! and then there's Statistics...
M Twain
Best reply ever. You totally just made my evening. Mark Twain FTW!
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
What this reminds me of is the poll that showed 90% of all teens masturbate, and 10% lie when polled...
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I think if everyone has the basic skills then performance is more of an indication of true vocation then mere skill. If I had their numbers I would call the guys my wife practiced on and thank them for the finished product I received.
I would like to be a fly on the wall for that conversation. Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Nato -
Did they poll the people about anything other than their location and gender? Did they ask them their religious views? Just curious, because those things I think would skew the finale results.
Here's what the webpage for the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) says:
quote:How Was I Chosen? We do not know who lives at your house or what your name is. We take a sample of households from all across the United States. When your interviewer arrives, she will find out if there is someone in your household we need to include in our study.
Why Should I Take Part? Why Not Interview Across the Street? We cannot talk to all of the millions of men and women in this country — that would cost too much and take too long. So we scientifically select a “sample” of households. We then choose one person from some of those households to be in the survey. Choosing the sample scientifically lets us take the information we learn and use it to better understand the whole population. Once participants have been chosen they cannot be replaced.
As far as how well a scientific sample of 12,500 people can predict behavior of a population, this sample size calculator says that you can achieve 99% confidence in an approx range of 94-96%.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
So, I'm guessing all they have is age, gender and location.
Honestly, I don't think that's enough information for this topic. I'm most curious to find out the religion of these people. What if all 40,000 or whatever were atheists? What if they were all Catholic? Some mix? Other religions? How seriously did they practice (religion, not the other thing)?
Further, that number is almost useless in getting us anywhere. If the poll was done to have any effect what so ever on sex education in this country, they left off a ton of questions that would be necessary, like what sort of sex education the people being questioned actually recieved. We have no idea if they recieved extensive education and went on to have sex, or limited abstinence only and then went on to have sex, or what the 5% got.
I know that statistically, cross sections and random sampling actually comes closer than not to the truth, but to learn anything of value, other than a number that can be used by pretty much anyone to justify any of their points about sex, a lot more questions needed to be asked in this poll.
Sax -
I love how you attacked a statistic by using another statistic to fend it off with. I'm not even sure how this is a "left" issue any more than a "right" issue. But I suppose your left smearing was supposed to be self-explanatory.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
I don't buy the whole 95% deal. Maybe it's just because I hang out in Christian circles, but There are a whole lot of people that, if they are not lying, have waited until marraige.
Also, it's not that more people are having pre-marital sex, it's that more people are admitting to it.
These are things people have probably already said, but I won't read the posts, Because I want to go to be... Hey! That rhymes.
For the record, I do believe that if the statistics are true, 95% people have made at least one major mistake in their lives. But, what people do is their business. One of my friends lost her virginity at 13/14. It happens. I, on the other hand, am still abstinate and I'm planning on remaining that way until I'm married.
<steps off of soap-box>
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to snooze.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Maybe it's just because I hang out in Christian circles, but There are a whole lot of people that, if they are not lying, have waited until marraige.
Agreed. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nathan2006: For the record, I do believe that if the statistics are true, 95% people have made at least one major mistake in their lives. But, what people do is their business. One of my friends lost her virginity at 13/14. It happens. I, on the other hand, am still abstinate and I'm planning on remaining that way until I'm married.
Not everyone who has premarital sex loses his/her virginity at a very young age. And not everyone who has premarital sex is promiscuous or careless.
Edit: Also, if you think only 95% of the population has made at least one major life mistake, then I'm pretty sure you're seriously mistaken.
-pH
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote: quote:Maybe it's just because I hang out in Christian circles, but There are a whole lot of people that, if they are not lying, have waited until marraige.
Agreed. [Smile]
Agreed. In my youth, I hung out in mostly Christian circles and as I got older, learned that many if not most of them were lying. Or at least misrepresenting themselves. Imagine my disillusionment when I found out what exactly passed for "chaste", "pure", and "virginal".
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I have not been so disillusioned. Take that as you will.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
Bridegroom to priest: Are you against pre-marital sex?
Priest: Only if it delays the ceremony...
Bdum-tssch
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Lyr, If you draw randomly from a population that has characteristics in some distribution, then, as your sample size increases, you become more and more likely to approach the true distribution in your sample, assuming that you have no selection bias. That is to say, it is possible that this sampling yielded a slice of the population with much different aspects from the general population, but it is very, very, very unlikely unless there was some sort of strong selection/response bias.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Nathan, I think you may run into definitional problems there, as many people consider a mistake to be something that someone does that negatively affects their lives that they often come to regret, as opposed to something that you, yourself, don't approve of.
[ December 21, 2006, 07:51 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Like Frisco, I knew a whole bunch of people who claimed to be horrified by the very idea of pre-marital sex in public...but participated in quite a bit of it in spite of that. Then, too, there's the "everything but" crowd, though I suppose by the definitions of the survey, they'd fall into the 5%.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I also believe further study is needed.
I volunteer as one of the canvessers.
"Hello. We are taking a serious scientific study. Can I have your age and gender please?
25 and Female. Thank you.
Have you ever had sex outside of marriage?
Yes? Ok
Would you consider it ever again?
Yes? Ok
What are you wearing?"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Maybe it's just because I hang out in Christian circles, but There are a whole lot of people that, if they are not lying, have waited until marraige.
Roughly 5%, I'd say. And it's certainly been my experience that most of the people I know -- religious and not -- who claim to have "waited" until marriage were, by the age of 25 or so, lying about it. There are always exceptions, but they're just that: exceptional.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I believe it's hard to wait. I also am dead positive that's it's possible.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Nathan, I think you may run into definitional problems there, as many people consider a mistake to be something that someone does that negatively affects their lives that they often come to regret, as opposed to something that you, yourself, don't approve of.
Squicky, you may be having a definitional problem of your own. Many people consider a mistake to be a "a wrong action attributable to bad judgment or ignorance or inattention."
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I'm with everyone who is surprised by the 5% number. I'm certainly having premarital sex, but in my circles, I'm the exception rather than the rule. And I don't run in Christian circles, although some of my friends are Christian. Also, I seriously doubt anyone is lying to me.
However, I know very few people over the age of 21, so maybe all of my friends who aren't having premarital sex now are going to start before 44.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
At 33, I don't know anyone (outside of the forums) who claims to be a virgin. Obviously, I know people with whom the subject hasn't come up. I know people who have had sex before and stopped because they now believe non-marital sex is wrong, and I know people who have non-marital sex and feel guilty about it and try not to for awhile but then start again. So I have no problem believing the numbers. I know there are people who believe it is important and stick to their convictions. . . and 5% sounds about right for that to me.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I knew a whole bunch of people who claimed to be horrified by the very idea of pre-marital sex in public.
I'm horrified by the very idea of any sex in public.
Get a room, people!
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Misplaced prepositional phrase.
Whoops!
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
What happens to respondants who refuse to take part in the survey? The quote from Nato says once participants are chosen they cannot be replaced, but I imagine they were not able to get responses from all the chosen interviewees. If so, is the number of non-responses sufficient to significantly change the statistical error? For instance, let's say they chose 40,000 and 20% didn't respond. If there were correlation between those 20% (say, for instance, many found the questions offensive because they didn't like their chastity being brought into question), that would give significant uncertainty to the results.
I guess I should go read the methodology for myself rather than making wild suppositions, but I just imagine there could be a lot of hidden uncertainty that get lost in the "95%" sound bite.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Frisco:
quote: quote:Maybe it's just because I hang out in Christian circles, but There are a whole lot of people that, if they are not lying, have waited until marraige.
Agreed. [Smile]
Agreed. In my youth, I hung out in mostly Christian circles and as I got older, learned that many if not most of them were lying. Or at least misrepresenting themselves. Imagine my disillusionment when I found out what exactly passed for "chaste", "pure", and "virginal".
You know that site is a spoof, right?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
a really hilarious spoof.
it sounds like something I would have come up with when I was about 17.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
So is postmarital sex.....divorcing your spouse....but still having sex with him/her? >_> <_<
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Yes.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Lyr, If you draw randomly from a population that has characteristics in some distribution, then, as your sample size increases, you become more and more likely to approach the true distribution in your sample, assuming that you have no selection bias. That is to say, it is possible that this sampling yielded a slice of the population with much different aspects from the general population, but it is very, very, very unlikely unless there was some sort of strong selection/response bias.
Well, first of all, they said right in the article that I read that the majority of respondents were women, so already it isn't 50/50 gender wise. That makes me wonder what else is different.
Second, let's assume you're right about the truth of the statistic. Like my previous post said, without asking more questions, that number doesn't tell us anything, and it doesn't help anything. Both sides of any particular argument regarding sex will be able to use it to support their point. It's about as helpful as an AOL poll.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Lyr- It doesn't matter if the responses are 50/50 genderwise. It just matters that you have a large enough sample of each.
Have you considered taking a basic statistics class? Since you're into this kind of thing, I think it would really help you.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
It seemed kinda high to me, but I'm not shocked either. I hang out in slightly more conservative and religious atmospheres, so I'm sure there's more selection bias in my own sample than in the survey's. Also, I don't exactly go around asking my friends about their sexual habits.
Anyhow, I think the whole virginity thing might be a bit overemphasized. I don't consider it something to be proud of or ashamed of. When it comes to bases, I'm sitting in the dugout, but I don't really consider myself more "chaste" or "pure" than other people. I just happened to have not engaged in certain behaviors, due to lack of interest and opportunity. I don't know why people care about it that much.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: Lyr- It doesn't matter if the responses are 50/50 genderwise. It just matters that you have a large enough sample of each.
Have you considered taking a basic statistics class? Since you're into this kind of thing, I think it would really help you.
A little quick off the trigger there.
If the gender imbalance is due to Non-response bias, then it is a legitimate concern.
[ December 21, 2006, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Cactus Jack (Member # 2671) on :
NEWSFLASH!!!!!!!!!!!!
95% OF PEOPLE WILLING TO TALK WITH STRANGERS ABOUT SEX LIVES EITHER HAD PREMARITAL SEX OR ARE WILLING TO LIE ABOUT IT!!!!
NEWS AT ELEVEN!!!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:When it comes to bases, I'm sitting in the dugout, but I don't really consider myself more "chaste" or "pure" than other people.
This makes me wonder what the word "chaste" means to you.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:When it comes to bases, I'm sitting in the dugout, but I don't really consider myself more "chaste" or "pure" than other people.
This makes me wonder what the word "chaste" means to you.
I'd guess more along the lines of these definitions:
quote:4. free from obscenity; decent: chaste conversation. 5. undefiled or stainless: chaste, white snow.
Rather than these:
quote:1. refraining from sexual intercourse that is regarded as contrary to morality or religion; virtuous. 2. virgin. 3. not engaging in sexual relations; celibate.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
The 95% makes sense to me. I hang out with folks in their late 20s and early 30s. We're geeks. We play D&D. And I still don't know any virgins.
I know plenty of folks who don't get any very often. But I don't know any who never have.
Yes, having sex even once can be dangerous. But I doubt folks who can count on one hand the number of encounters they've had can really be much of a health risk. My buddy who's done it once ever doesn't seem to compare well to the guy I knew who considered it a badge of honor to rack up a high partner count over the weekend. That's just apples and oranges.
If they want to study the number of partners someone has and the age they started, why don't they try asking that instead? I have a buddy who didn't start until 23 and has far surpassed myself who started at 15. Ask the question you actually want to know the answer to.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I read in Cosmo that the average woman has 3 partners in her life.
I think Cosmo is a liar.
-pH
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Simultaneously? That sounds like an idea for a new sitcom!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I read in Cosmo that the average woman has 3 partners in her life.
I think Cosmo is a liar.
Actually, I think that's probably pretty close to right -- again, speaking anecdotally. There are the statistical extremes on either end, and there's the question of whether we're dealing with a median or a mean, but three rings relatively true to me.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I think it's probably a bit higher. Not a LOT higher, but I'd think over the course of a lifetime, probably a couple higher than that.
-pH
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I dunno. Even in my circle of relatively promiscuous friends, I can count on one hand the number of women who've had sex with more than five men. Now, admittedly at least two of them have had sex with more than twenty, so they do weird things to the average, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that a slim majority of women sleep with just one or two men -- ever -- in their life.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
quote:
quote:When it comes to bases, I'm sitting in the dugout, but I don't really consider myself more "chaste" or "pure" than other people.
This makes me wonder what the word "chaste" means to you.
In the sexual sense, more of an active avoidance of sex, I suppose. Rather than just being an engineer .
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
I'm not a mathematician, so I'm having trouble with something. If the average women only has 3 partners, wouldn't that have to be relatively the same for men? Or am I apporaching this wrong? *puzzled*
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: I'm not a mathematician, so I'm having trouble with something. If the average women only has 3 partners, wouldn't that have to be relatively the same for men? Or am I apporaching this wrong? *puzzled*
It depends on what they mean by average. If they're talking about the mean, I think so, since the total number of sexual acts is the same on both sides. If they're talking about the median, not at all, since one person having sex with 146 people and four people having sex with one each will result in a dramatically different median than five people who all have had sex with 30 partners.
And this is all assuming we're talking about single-partner sex!
Edit: not sure how "30" didn't get in there. I distinctly remember typing it. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Not necessarily, especially if we're dealing with median instead of mean.
Imagine a group of 10 women and 10 men. Let's say that 8 of the women have sex with nobody, but two of the women have sex with all 10 men.
In this case, the median number of partners for the men would be 2, while the median number of partners for the women would be 0.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I should've waited a few minutes to post, since mph's explanation was much easier to read than mine.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: Lyr- It doesn't matter if the responses are 50/50 genderwise. It just matters that you have a large enough sample of each.
Have you considered taking a basic statistics class? Since you're into this kind of thing, I think it would really help you.
A little quick off the trigger there.
If the gender imbalance is due to Non-response bias, then it is a legitimate concern.
Non-response bias had already been talked about earlier in the thread. Everyone agreed that it might be a problem. Lyrhawn seemed to be saying that the poll couldn't be accurate because it wasn't 50/50 male/female. That's incorrect.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
If the men in the poll where much more likely to ignore it except when they had lots of sexual experience to report it would skew the results. Something as simple as time of day could do the same thing. I do not trust sampling because what it is really good at is finding interesting unexpected strange attractors in samples, not revealing truth.
I know from interaction with young men that they have more and earlier sexual opportunities then I ever had, but it seems to be with a fraction of the girls who are promiscuous and they seem to be much more relaxed about it. Of course if I had sex in Jr high I would have been pretty relaxed about it as well.
The one trend I see that is strange to me is that the act of 'breaking in' a new participant, which used to be a practice that attracted certain men and boys has crossed gender lines and now there seems to be a significant number of older girls who seek to initiate the younger men. I know of one school where half the eighth grade boys were initiated by a single senior girl and her clique. It is significant because the numbers can get so high, a virgin girl is likely to be timid but a virgin boy is likely to be eager to the point of desperation. A handful of such girls or in one case a mother of school age girl can seriously change the sexual climate in small town for several years with effects for decades.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
I'm so over statistics.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: Lyr- It doesn't matter if the responses are 50/50 genderwise. It just matters that you have a large enough sample of each.
Have you considered taking a basic statistics class? Since you're into this kind of thing, I think it would really help you.
A little quick off the trigger there.
If the gender imbalance is due to Non-response bias, then it is a legitimate concern.
Non-response bias had already been talked about earlier in the thread. Everyone agreed that it might be a problem. Lyrhawn seemed to be saying that the poll couldn't be accurate because it wasn't 50/50 male/female. That's incorrect.
I only scanned the thread, but it just seemed that Squickly and SR mentioned it and no one really responded, but I could be wrong. Although I'm sure that I would have noticed if *everyone* chimed in and agreed, because thats an awful lot of people.
In any case, it seemed to me that Lyrhawn suspected that the sample was unrepresentative of the population and cited the gender bias as evidence that there might be a bias, saying that if certain men didn't respond then there might be a reason why they didn't respond.
That seemed perfectly reasonable to me, and if *everyone* already agreed that nonresponse might be a problem, it might have been a little redundant, but hardly any cause to tell Lyr to take a basic statistics class.
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
That seemed perfectly reasonable to me, and if *everyone* already agreed that nonresponse might be a problem, it might have been a little redundant, but hardly any cause to tell Lyr to take a basic statistics class.
I don't think suggesting that Lyr take a statistics class was meant at all meanly (ie "Why don't you just let the people who know what they're talking about discuss this, OK?") so much as she (he?) seems to have an interest in the subject and might enjoy learning more about it. I could be wrong, though.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:So is postmarital sex.....divorcing your spouse....but still having sex with him/her?
No. Its having intimate relations with a fence you've promised to love, honor, and recieve tax benefits with unto death.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I think it's been shown in a number of studies that women, on average, when asked about their sexual history, lie on the low side. Men exaggerate the other way.
I suspect that if we took an average of male and female claims combined, we'd have an accurate number.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Now see if you were 40ish and had still had not had sex and somebody did a survey on it, would you tell the truth?
"Premarital sex? um.. of COURSE! I love da ladies! HONEST!"
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Personally, if I was 40 and still a virgin, I hope I'd've come to terms with it enough to be honest with it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Human: Personally, if I was 40 and still a virgin, I hope I'd've come to terms with it enough to be honest with it.
Oh I agree with you there, but I know plenty of people who at least SAY they want to get laid for the sake of saying they did.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: Lyrhawn seemed to be saying that the poll couldn't be accurate because it wasn't 50/50 male/female. That's incorrect.
I think Lyrhawn was saying the sample is already non-uniform, since if it were there would be a 50/50 gender split; he's wondering whether there are other sampling biases, such as religion, class, etc.
For instance, say Jedis make up 10% of the total population (they don't, but say they do). Say no Jedis engage in pre-marital sex (they do, but say they don't). Say the study didn't do a random sample across Jedi-ness, skewing the sample by only including 2% Jedi respondants. The 95% extrapolation to the broader population would be quite inaccurate (off by appr. 7.5%). The fact that the study did not do a random sample across gender makes one (particularly Lyrhawn, but also me) wonder what other characteristics they didn't take a random sample across.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The fact that the study did not do a random sample across gender
Who says they didn't do a random sample across gender? If you flip a coin 100 times, it probably won't be heads 50 times.
If they made sure it was a 50/50 gender split, that would not be a random sample.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:The fact that the study did not do a random sample across gender
Who says they didn't do a random sample across gender? If you flip a coin 100 times, it probably won't be heads 50 times.
If they made sure it was a 50/50 gender split, that would not be a random sample.
But it's much more likely that it will come up heads fifty times than that it will come up heads 75 times; so if a coin came up heads 75 times you're best hypothesis (with some degree of uncertainty) would be that the coin was biased. I could calculate the actual uncertainty, given an hour of down time <edit>or 20 minutes; the standard deviation (a good measure of uncertainty) at 100 samples is about 0.0216; at 1000 it is about 0.0041), meaning the likelihood of getting anything other than a 50/50 split is vanishingly small for that sample size.</edit>. The uncertainty would go down significantly if you flipped a coin 1000 times and got 750 heads. This is a study with (IIRC) 44,000 participants, so the fact that it isn't 50/50 gender split indicates that it is very unlikely that it was a uniform sampling.
What actually happened (as far as gender sampling) is this (just went to the website and found out): they combined four surveys, taken in 1982, 1988, 1995, and 2002 and combined them. The final year was the only one to include male respondants in the sample group, resulting in a males being underrepresented in the sample set. I don't know if the study corrected for this by working on the gender subsets and then extrapolating to the larger population based on a true 50/50 gender split. That would be (I believe) the best practice, but it would do some funky things to your error bounds (because you're drawing statistics from two non-identically sampled populations).
[ December 22, 2006, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by MidnightBlue:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
That seemed perfectly reasonable to me, and if *everyone* already agreed that nonresponse might be a problem, it might have been a little redundant, but hardly any cause to tell Lyr to take a basic statistics class.
I don't think suggesting that Lyr take a statistics class was meant at all meanly (ie "Why don't you just let the people who know what they're talking about discuss this, OK?") so much as she (he?) seems to have an interest in the subject and might enjoy learning more about it. I could be wrong, though.
This was what I meant.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
So I downloaded the data set (the 2002, I don't think I can download the older sets) and rummaged through it a bit. I haven't recreated any of the original experiment, but I did think these numbers might be of some interest:
Male percentages for 1st sex: married = 2.6%, unmarried = 80.8%, no 1st sex (virgin) = 16.6%
Female percentages for 1st sex: married = 7.6%, unmarried = 81.1%, no 1st sex (virgin) = 11.3%
So, of all 1st sex events in females, 91.5% were premarital. Of all 1st sex events in males, 96.7% were premarital.
Presuming there is no correlation between current virgin status and waiting until marriage, that would lead me to conclude (using an equal male/female waiting <edit>err, that's weighting</edit>) that appr. 94% of all 1st sex is premarital. However, I doubt the non-correlation assumption is true, and believe 94% is more of an upper bound. (81% would be the radical lower bound, where the assumption is that all current virgins wait until marriage to have 1st sex; 95.1% would be the corresponding radical upper bound that assumes no current virgins wait until marriage to have 1st sex).
These presumptions are, of course, only as good as the underlying sampling, which I've previously stated I have some concerns with (although fewer after reading a bit more of the methodology). Overall, this has been a pretty depressing exercise for me.
[ December 22, 2006, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Male percentages for 1st sex: married = 2.6%, unmarried = 80.8%, no 1st sex (virgin) = 16.6%
Female percentages for 1st sex: married = 7.6%, unmarried = 81.1%, no 1st sex (virgin) = 11.3%
So, of all 1st sex events in females, 91.5% were premarital. Of all 1st sex events in males, 96.7% were premarital.
I am I reading this right? The virgins are counted in the "having pre-marital sex" category? *raises eyebrow*
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
No, the 91.5% for female and 96.7% in males is not counting virgins at all. It's a coincidence that counting them as having sex before marriage leads to a combined male and female 95.1%. Or at least, that's how I read Senoj's post.
(Keep in mind, he's only using numbers from the most recent of the four polls.)
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I think he may be excluding the virgins from the numbers and calculating the premarital from just the total of those that have had sex. Added: which creates the upper and lower bounds, and the number of virgins that have premarital sex will fall somewhere in the midde.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Wait, what? No.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I am I reading this right? The virgins are counted in the "having pre-marital sex" category? *raises eyebrow*
I don't understand your question exactly; are you wondering about the original study's "having pre-marital sex" category? If so, I'll just repeat that I haven't tried to replicate the original study's methodology. However, if you assume that current virgins will participate in pre-marital sex at the same rate as non-virigins, the number still comes out to be 94% of all people's first sex is premarital. If you make a different assumption, say that no current-virgins will participate in pre-marital sex, the number comes out to 81%; and if you make the assumption that all current-virigins will participate in premarital sex, the number will be 95.1%
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Wondering how the number could be so high when clearly debating statistical methods is so much more fun!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think it's been shown in a number of studies that women, on average, when asked about their sexual history, lie on the low side. Men exaggerate the other way.
How could that be shown? If they lied about their history, how do you know?
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
Perhaps by doing studies where people are asked face to face and doing a separate study where people are asked completely anonymously on paper and comparing the results? I don't know, but I thin it may be possible.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Why don't they just do the poll completely anonymously in the first place then, if they get more accurate results?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I think it's been shown in a number of studies that women, on average, when asked about their sexual history, lie on the low side. Men exaggerate the other way.
How could that be shown? If they lied about their history, how do you know?
Trivial. Every sex act by a man with a woman involves a sex act by a woman with a man. If men and women report different total numbers of sex acts, something is wrong. To be sure, you'd have to compensate for out-of-population effects: Maybe all the boys are having sex with one girl whom you didn't happen to poll, and if you got that one in the numbers would match up again. But I'm going to wave my hands around that problem because I used the word 'trivial' and then came up with some pretty nice elegant math, and therefore any real-world problems with the theory are just a conspiracy by sociologists and suchlike scum; and besides, for an effect the size we speak of here, sheesh, that's one really skanky girl, as in, porn-star-gangathon-every-day skanky.
quote:Why don't they just do the poll completely anonymously in the first place then, if they get more accurate results?
Because the question you asked was "How do you show that anonymous polls are more accurate", for which you do actually need to do at least one non-anonymous poll. Duh.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
In one test I saw (there were a few to choose from), Port, there were fake lie detectors involved. Women answered the questions anonymously, then were asked again, thinking they were hooked up to a lie detector.
The jump in that particular test was from an average of, I think, 2.6 "anonymously" to 4.4 on the fake lie detector.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That's really interesting. I wonder why people would feel the need to od that (lie in an anonymous poll). Are they trying to represent their group in a more favorable light?
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Often times you can tell when large groups of people have lied in a given poll, particularly when the questions are related.
I think there should be a poll to discover how many people believe anonymous polls are not completely anonymous.
--j_k
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I took a poll in high school once about drugs and alcohol use. It was anonymous, and I wasn't worried that I would be found out. I did not use drugs or alcohol, but I knew several friends who did, and who I believed would lie about it in the poll, so I answered positively in a probably misguided attempt to make the poll more accurate.
I wonder how much of this sort of thing goes on in polls.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Hooray!
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
I could be wrong, though.