Skip to: Content | Sidebar | Footer

What does it take to be promiscuous these days?

by Jared Bridges
May 9, 2007

Am I the only one who finds this headline a little ironic?

No Link to Promiscuity Found in Youths Using Condoms

Unless these youths are busy making water balloons, I think the researchers might be missing something…

Family Research Council is a 501c(3) non-profit organization. If this post has been helpful to you, please consider a gift to help us continue to advance Faith, Family, and Freedom.

«
»

Comments

By: Randy | May 9, 2007 at 10:36 pm

… that’s classic.

I want to be laughing but oddly … I don’t seem to be able too. Someone actually thought that was a good and appropriate deadline.

By: Suricou Raven | May 10, 2007 at 7:17 am

Oh, what happened the FRCs usual skill at manipulating statistics? This just isn’t up to your usual standards.

You have linked to an article describing some research that seems fairly credible to me (nice big sample size), and appears to conclude that condoms are not associated with promiscuity. Those who use condoms on their first sexual encounter do not go on to have more partners than those who do not.

And then you claim that this research is wrong based on… what? You dont even give a reason. Really, I am dispointed, Bridges. You just assume that condoms must encourage promiscuity, and offer nothing with which to back up this claim.

If the researchers are ‘missing something’ then what exactly is this something?

By: John | May 10, 2007 at 11:26 am

I guess it all depends on how one defines promiscuity.

There are some people who consider even one partner (if it is not in wedlock) to be promicuous. I doubt there are many who hold that view, but I know at least one personally.

I know othr who draw the line at two, and I know others who consider serial monogamy promiscuous.

By: Suricou Raven | May 10, 2007 at 2:41 pm

This has nothing to do with the definition of promiscuity. The problem is that the FRC blog posted a link to a story of some research, and then attempted to deny the result of this research using nothing more solid than ‘missing something.’ I really am disapointed in them. I usually see such facinating works of denial here – ommited facts, abused statistics, deliberate oversighs. But this is just… pathetic.