New survey finds women more sexually active than men in high school

Story here in the Sydney Morning Herald. (H/T ECM)


Year 12 girls are more likely to have had sex than boys, and teenagers are likely to have had sex with more partners than a decade ago, a national survey has shown.

More than 61 per cent of year 12 girls said they had had sex, compared to 44 per cent of boys of that year, the study by LaTrobe University’s faculty of health sciences researchers found.

In a trend the report links to heavier drinking by adolescents, the proportion of sexually active year 12 girls who reported having had sex with three or more partners in the previous year more than doubled to 27 per cent in the decade to 2008. Among boys, 38 per cent said they had had three or more sexual partners in the year.

The survey of 8800 year 10 and year 12 students in 300 schools around Australia was taken in three snapshots between 1997 and 2008.

The proportion of year 10 boys who had had sex rose slightly from 23 per cent to 27 per cent between 1997 and 2008, while for year 10 girls the rise was more significant, up from 16 per cent to 27 per cent.

In year 12, the number of boys who reported having had sex dipped slightly from 47 per cent in 1997 to 44 per cent in 2008, while the rate for girls rose from 48 per cent to 61 per cent.

The report, published in the latest Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, said the increased numbers of students having multiple sexual partners was significantly higher than that found in a large survey in the US and may be linked to heavier drinking among Australian teenagers.

”In Australia, rates of alcohol consumption among secondary students have increased markedly, as has the proportion of young people engaging in sex while under the influence of alcohol or drugs – these factors may be associated with the increases observed in sexual activity here,” the report says.

“Year 12” is what Australians call their final year of high school. Well, given what we now know about virginity and marital stability, this is the end of marriage in Australia, and that means that children will not be growing up in stable environments. Remember, feminism is the cause of female promiscuity – it was feminists who wanted to destroy marriage by forcing women to “have sex like men” in order to obliterate gender differences, and the “unequal gender roles” inherent in the institution of marriage. Feminists spearheaded sex-education, contraception and abortion. Feminist academics, feminist lawmakers and feminist policies pushed women into pre-marital sex. And this undermines chivalry, chastity and marriage.

I recently read a news story about a Duke University woman who engaged in hook-up sex with a variety of athletes. (I cannot write about it or link to it, it is so graphic). And the thing that stood out about the story for me was the woman’s criteria for men. It was all about physical appearance, entertainment and amusement, and sexual performance. (She also gave points for performance at sports activities and popularity on campus). These are the new criteria that women are using for men. They do not want to be led, they want to be entertained. They do not want marriage, they want fun.

This is the point where we have gotten to, where some women in the finest universities regularly take drugs and alcohol and have anonymous sex with men who mean nothing to them and who have nothing to do with them afterward. There is nothing that a man is supposed to do with a woman that is related to marriage or family. The man’s normal tasks of protection, providing and moral/spiritual leadership are now the role of the state, the courts and the public school system. A man’s role is sperm donor and tax payer.

The part that scares me the most is how a woman can choose to have sex with men like this, and maybe eventually co-habitate with one of them just by the force of inertia, and somehow get to the point where men are to blame for this. Aren’t women responsible for their own poor choices with men and sex? It’s very disconcerting to men who are marriage-minded to see the MAJORITY of women freely choosing to make themselves unsuitable for marriage. How can the destruction of marriage ever stop if women keep blaming everyone except themselves for their own bad decisions about men and sex? What will happen to the children who have to grow up in the world that feminism has made?

Related posts

14 thoughts on “New survey finds women more sexually active than men in high school”

  1. I’m not surprised. I just covered the Duke woman on my blog, although I will caution people, skip that story if it will be a stumbling block. For me, it is just PLAIN disgusting.

    “It’s very disconcerting to men who are marriage-minded to see the MAJORITY of women freely choosing to make themselves unsuitable for marriage.”

    Don’t you know? Marriage was so 20th century. It went out with phones with cords and the VCR. And I’m a relic of the past. Forgive my sarcasm, I’m just totally repulsed right now.


    1. Alisha, you are one of the good ones. Thank you for not being mad at me. Actually, I am really disgusted with men who she slept with and I am glad that that the details came out. Those men should be ashamed of themselves for taking advantage of her sexually. It’s not good for men to be predators like that! I am so angry with those men. Wasn’t there ONE MAN who cared enough about her to tell her no? Not even one man who would give her love and attention without requiring her to do that?


  2. This is terrible. As you say, it doesn’t bode well for the future.

    However, you should change the title of your post to say that women are more likely to BE sexually active than men are in high school. There’s a difference. Particularly since it seems that men are more likely to be promiscuous in high school, as evidenced by the 3 or more partners statistic. Also, remember that men generally prefer younger women and women generally prefer older men, which means that the gender disparity may merely be a function of the age preferences in the general population. And one ought then to compare people with those of the opposite sex of their average dating partner age.

    But yes, youth culture is in a bad way…


  3. I was hanging out with a group of college students once where they said that it was a bad date if the man did not pay. My suggestion was that if women really wanted men to take the financially dominant position in the relationship they were going to have to give up something, like voting or having a job. If not, then why should men be obligated to fulfill their traditional role when women are not? No one took what I said seriously. In fact, some men argued that chivalry was not a trade off. Ridiculous! Chivalry only works if it is a trade off. If not, a better word for it is “slave.”


  4. Matt: Are you seriously saying women shouldn’t vote or work?? I’m no feminist, and if I marry and have kids one day, I intend being a stay-at-home mom. But I quite frankly think it’s hogwash to say I woman shouldn’t vote or work. As for whether the guy pays for a date… I make no assumptions. But the ones that do insist on paying do impress me. Oh and I don’t want a dominant man. I would like a man who leads. There is a difference. I have no time for men who feel threatened by women with talent and thoughts in their heads. I have plenty of time for men who value women’s talents, and listen to their thoughts, and nurture them. If you’re happy with a Bible Barbie who just says “yes dear” all the time and is content to spend all day painting her nails and not worrying her pretty head about politics or the economy, that’s fine. Just realize what you’re going to get.


    1. In once sense, I agree with Matt that chivalry doesn’t work unless it is received correctly by the woman. But that has nothing to do with women giving up the vote or not having a job (at leas when there are no young children). What chivalry requires from women is that women encourage it, respond well to it, reciprocate with fidelity, vulnerability, susceptibility, trust and so on. Basically, women have to be feminine to respond to chivalry. They have to respect chivalry in men, and prefer men who are chivalrous over men who don’t show courtesy and service. That’s really how what women have to do to respond to chivalry.


  5. Wintery, I agree entirely with what you’re saying. That ought to be the natural response of a woman who is the recipient of chivalry. I just see red when someone suggests I shouldn’t have a vote or a job. I think Matt has a weird set of pre-requisites.


    1. Sometimes I worry that men don’t do a good enough job of seeking out strong women who are defending men and marriage and children at the highest levels. And I mean scholars and politicians and lawyers, etc. The average man has no idea what his own interests even are, so that he is not thankful for the Jennifer Roback Morse/Michele Bachmann/Dr. Laura type women. I think men really do measure women by appearance only. It’s like they think that marriage will only be about sex, when you actually have to live with that person and raise kids with her and manage money with her. I cannot forgive men for not understanding the demands of marriage and parenting. Without knowing the requirements, they will not be able to choose the right woman for the job. It really is incredibly stupid for a man to look at a woman and know nothing at all about the challenges he will face and what she should be able to do to help him with those challenges. And when I say help I mean there will be many serious problems that she will be needed for that he is not qualified to solve.


  6. Wintery: Exactly. You said it perfectly. Too many Christians do not understand what the leadership-submission dynamic looks like. Too many men feel that they are leaders if the woman makes them feel wise and knowledgable because she’s foolish and ignorant. On the other hand, a godly woman makes her husband feel wise and knowledgable by acknowledging and praising him for being wise and knowledgable. Leadership and submission is not a competition, it is teamwork. A woman does not submit by being politically weak in comparison to her husband. She submits by directing her political power to help her husband in their shared goal.


    1. This sounds right to me. If I were running a business and I were good at accounting but not law, I would go out and hire the best lawyer I could get, then I would treat that person as well as possible so that they would not leave for a competitor.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s