Despite what our parents and grandparents, and quite possibly our great and great-great grandparents, may imply or tell us, they probably weren't as virtuous as they want us to believe. While they may not talk about it openly, there is a good chance they engaged in premarital sex, and as a result conceived children outside of marriage. Premarital sex and all its implications are perhaps the best, or is it the worst, kept secret in U.S. history.
I would never do that, but I did:
Historically speaking, women have been viewed as less sexual than men, if not asexual, and as a result were tasked with enforcing social sexual morality, or society felt it necessary to protect women from sexual men, which implies men in general. Women and their families were expected to prevent sex outside of marriage, and if nothing else, use the promise of sex to promote marriage. There is one major problem with that practice, women are equally as sexual as men, and are driven to reproduce equally as much as men.
In the past, women simply weren't allowed to acknowledge their sex drive, but this doesn't mean it didn't and doesn't influence their actions. While parents were and are fearful of their adolescent or unmarried daughter "being impregnated," they probably didn't and don't want to acknowledge the probability of her "volunteering to become pregnant," i.e. participating in partnered sex on a more than willing basis.
If women became or become pregnant outside of marriage, it is usually seen as a "morality" rather than "biological" concern. It would appear social and religious morality have not kept pace with our scientific understanding of the human body, specifically, the influence hormones have on the actions of the mind and body. Our genetics are responsible for the presence of the hormones, and our physical environment at most influences when, not if, they play a role in our actions. We still believe, and perhaps want to believe, on a certain level that spirits enter our body and cause us to act badly or irresponsibly. The ultimate reality is, the use of social morality to control personal actions probably isn't as effective as many believe, especially as it applies to sex.
The graph presented above is for England and Wales, but given the illegitimacy rate for the U.S. was 3.9 percent in 1950, 5.3 percent in 1960, and 10.7 percent in 1970 [2], it likely approximates the illegitimacy rate for the U.S. during the same time period. While 4 percent is a small percentage, it still implies 1 out 25 births were out of wedlock, and 10 percent implies 1 out of 10 births were out of wedlock. By 2007, 40 percent (2 out 5) births occurred outside of marriage in the U.S. Source
During WWI and WWII women appear to have been more willing to allow sex outside of marriage, and/or since their partner was serving in the military, or deceased, they weren't available for a shotgun wedding, which may have concealed some of the prior and subsequent premarital sex. The increase in births outside of marriage beginning in the 1960s can be attributed to changing social attitudes during the sexual revolution. Birth records from early U.S. history also provide evidence that some, if not many, women were pregnant at the time of their wedding, as their first child was born prior to nine months after their wedding. [4]
"Data from the 2002 survey indicate that by age 20, 77% of respondents had had sex, 75% had had premarital sex, and 12% had married; by age 44, 95% of respondents (94% of women, and 96% of men, and 97% of those who had ever had sex) had had premarital sex. Even among those who abstained until at least age 20, 81% had had premarital sex by age 44. Among cohorts of women turning 15 between 1964 and 1993, at least 91% had had premarital sex by age 30. Among those turning 15 between 1954 and 1963, 82% had had premarital sex by age 30, and 88% had done so by age 44." Source
The graph shown below indicates that between 1964 and 2003 the frequency and commencement of premarital sex was pretty consistent, and while premarital sex was less common and delayed between 1954 - 1963 (the lowest dashed line), it ultimately occurred at a much higher frequency than many of us have been lead to believe.
During his 1948 and 1953 studies, Alfred Kinsey found that premarital sex wasn't uncommon amongst his survey participants. Premarital sex was reported by 67-98% of men, depending on their socioeconomic level, and 50% of women. Source The difference in the male and female premarital sex rates can be partly explained by the fact that "among unmarried males, sex with a prostitute was about 10% of the total premarital intercourse." Even so, there is the implication that some women who engaged in premarital sex had more than one sexual partner, that some women weren't willing to admit to premarital sex or couldn't bring themselves to admit that what they had done was sexual in nature, or that men lie about their sexual experience. I would tend to vote for all of the above.
Even during colonial times in the U.S. there may have been more premarital sex than one expects.
"In the eighteenth century [1700s], and probably earlier, courting couples in New England and the middle colonies had the opportunity for physical intimacy with parental approval through the custom of bundling. This practice, which had antecedents among Welsh, Dutch, and German peasants, allowed a couple to spend the night together in bed as long as they remained fully clothed or, in some cases, kept a "bundling board" between them. Bundling served the needs of suitors who traveled long distances and called in small houses that offered neither privacy nor much heat. Parents and youths shared the expectation that sexual intercourse would not take place, but it did, and pregnancy resulted, the couple would certainly marry." Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America 1988 Pg. 22
See also [4]
Sexual Motives:
Have women been having sex against their will, which is the common social presumption, or have they merely found socially accepted reasons that justified their having sex? In the past, the promise of marriage was sometimes enough to persuade a woman to permit premarital sex [3]. As indicated above, periods of war have, perhaps always, resulted in women side-stepping social morality, and I believe society overlooks this, as if members of your community are dying in mass, social morality takes second stage to the need to replace them, for the benefit of the community.
Today, the top four primary reasons women give for participating in vaginal intercourse for the first time are love (17%), sexual curiosity (10%), intense sexual desire or arousal (7%), and simply being ready (7%). Only 4 percent cite marriage/honeymoon as their primary reason. A total of seven percent did so because of their partner's demands (4%), wishes (1%), or happiness (1%), or peer pressure and expectation (1%). It is important to note that almost half of the women, 48%, had other primary motives, some sexual, some not. Source
Some would argue "love" has a strong sexual component, so there is the possibility for the top four reasons to have a sexual component, that women are acting on sexual feelings, desires, and experiences, rather than purely emotional or logical reasons, or partner, peer, and social pressures. "Love" may serve as a socially acceptable reason for women to act on physical sexual desire. I'm not denying their individual experience of love, only presenting the possibility for the experience of love to include sexual attraction and desire, that "love" doesn't automatically preclude sex and sexual desire. Many see "true love" as "pure" and devoid of sex, and as a result a justifiable reason to have sex; the pure justifies the impure, at least based on traditional morality and thinking.
In a survey on this website, 74% of women indicate they first experienced sexual desire prior to the age of 15, and 51% experienced sexual desire prior to or at the same time as their first menstrual period; 64% of these women indicate they experienced their first menstrual period prior to the age of 13. In a second survey, 75% of women were consciously aware of their sexual desire by age 15. In a third survey, 69% of women say sexual desire or attraction played a part in their initial attraction to their current partner, with 37% saying it played a "significant" part. Is it safe to conclude from these survey results that teenage girls and women are motivated by sexual desire, and they are aware of this influence on their actions at a relatively young age?
The table shown above combines data from different sources and doesn't have a high degree of precision, but even so we can see that relatively soon after experiencing their first menstrual period girls begin engaging in sexual intercourse, and as a result of their fertility begin to become pregnant. It is reported that on average girls become fertile one year after their first menstrual period, which means in the absence of external forces, on average they would likely experience their first pregnancy at 13 or 14 years of age; certainly a scary and detrimental prospect. Since the onset of sex and pregnancy are delayed, and spread over a greater period of time than the onset of menstruation, this likely indicates society's influence on sex and reproduction; much to its benefit.
Given that 80% of pregnancies are unplanned, this likely means biology has greater influence on the end result than social and personal expectation. If it was a personal issue, it seems more likely the percentage of unplanned pregnancies wouldn't be nearly so high. The high percentage of unplanned pregnancies perhaps reflects changes within society, namely the delay of marriage, and more recently, the decreased role of marriage within our society. We also value reproduction less than we once did, as indicated by our declining birth rate. While society has changed, human reproduction hasn't, or at least to a lesser degree. Mainly because "sex" hasn't changed even though society has, and one may question if it can.
The Role of Marriage & Menarche:
A factor that would tend to influence the rate of premarital sex, and as a result the number of unwed mothers, is the length of time between menarche and marriage. If one acknowledges the influence of sexual desire on a couple's behavior, the greater the time between menarche and marriage, the greater the probability for premarital sex and unwed pregnancy.
"If one looks at US statistics over the past 100 years for example, one sees that men had an average age at marriage of 25.9 years in 1900. Women in 1900 had an average age at marriage of 22 years. "
"Even Jane Austen, writing in the early 19th century [1811-1816] had heroines married at the earliest age of 17 or 18. In Laura Ingalls Wilder’s books, which are semi- autobiographical, her father would not allow her to marry until she was 18 [she married in 1885]."
"Currently the average age at marriage in the US is 26.8 years for men, and 25.1 years for women." Source
Laura Ingalls Wilder’s experience suggests she desired to marry prior to age 18, and in fact she began dating her future husband at the age of 15, the same age at which she began working as a teacher.
"When Laura was just 15, and Almanzo was 25, he began courting her, driving her back and forth between De Smet and a new settlement 12 miles (19 km) outside town where she was teaching school." Source
The average age at which a young woman's first menstrual period occurs has decreased over the past 200 years, from age 17 in 1800, to 14 in 1900, to 12.5 to 12.8 in 1950 and today. It is possible that prior to the 1800s young women were marrying soon after menarche, thus removing the need to contend with their sex drive outside of marriage, at least for an extended period of time. In 1900 the average woman in the U.S. would have been menstruating for 8 years prior to marriage, and perhaps experiencing an active sex drive for the same length of time. Today, that time span has increased to 13 years for the "average" woman, and perhaps longer for those who experience puberty and marriage at the lower and/or upper ends of the respective bell curves.
The Fox Guards the Henhouse:
How long does a society expect young women to be immune to or live in denial of their sexual feelings, their biological desire, and one might argue, the necessity of reproducing? As a result of a biological and instinctive desire to reproduce, to have sex, teenage girls and adult women probably aren't any better at enforcing personal or social sexual morality than men, especially when men weren't and aren't equality responsible for enforcing the same morality. Abstinence-only sex education or socially prescribed virginity doesn't work any better today than it did in the past, because we are only human, and like every other species seeking to survive, are driven to reproduce, and even social morality hasn't been able to change that reality, like it or not.
Holding young men AND women responsible for regulating their own sexuality is equivalent to having a fox guard the henhouse, but as the information presented above points out, having society regulate their sexuality hasn't been as effective as society would like to claim, especially as the dynamics of our society continue to change over time. While we may not be able to regulate sexual desire, perhaps we can help couples express it in ways that don't put them at risk for unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. While not a totally new theme, based on the letters I receive, women and couples are looking for alternatives to traditional reproductive sex, perhaps as a result of perceived social necessity. Letter 1 Letter 2 Letter 3 Letter 4
Changing Society:
In the not too distant past, there was much less pressure on young women to do well in school and attend college, as they were expected to marry soon after high school and begin raising a family; this still remains true within some communities. A woman's default occupation was "asexual mother," as she wasn't permitted to have a sex drive that could possibly influence her actions, even within marriage. As shown above, even this timeline and morality were insufficient to eliminate premarital sex and unwed pregnancies, not to mention extramarital sex. Now that young women are expected to be sexual yet virtuous (a sexual virgin if you will), and go to college, we see the end result, an increased rate of unwed pregnancies, and because of a greater number of sexual partners, increased rates of STD transmission.
In non-industrialized societies, it is my understanding that families try to "marry off" their daughters as soon as possible, before their daughter's children become a burden on the family, from an economic perspective. Sometimes preadolescent girls are placed within an arranged marriage prior to puberty, meaning they are partnered long before their sex drive can influence their decisions and behavior, at least in theory. In other societies a girl's clitoris is cut off and her vagina sewn shut in order control her reproduction, and as a result her sexuality. The girl's parents want her marriage to have an economic benefit for them, rather than being a matter of romance, love, or sexual attraction, and have a potential negative economic impact on the extended family.
While we may not approve of these practices in modern Western society, they likely indicate the respective societies acknowledged the potential implications of sexual desire within a young woman's life. Even within Western society, social pressure to marry was intended to accomplish the same thing, controlled reproduction, necessitating controlled sexuality. Societies always develop morality that serves to its benefit, even if later on we don't approve of the means, even if it isn't always successful over time. Individuals and peer groups tend to change much faster than society as a whole, which explains the difference in personal behavior and social morality.
The Necessity of Change:
The challenge we face today is, learning whether sexual desire must always result in "reproductive sex," or if "recreational sex" will suffice to fulfill our sexual desires. Can we engage in fulfilling "sex" without exchanging body fluids and engaging in penile/vaginal intercourse? Our changing world will likely require this change, whether we like it or not, because of a greater need for higher education, global overpopulation, and increasing threat from evolving diseases. As is the case with HIV in Africa, if a society doesn't adapt to a changing world, it faces extinction.
The Present and Possible Future:
Something that has changed recently in U.S. society is, society's willingness to accept a sexual motive in the actions of women, perhaps begrudgingly, as women have exerted greater autonomy and control over their lives. Perhaps to the point of saying men are less essential to their life than society would like. From a socioeconomic perspective, a two income household is better than a single income household, but perhaps marriage and men are no longer essential to that equation.
Today, with the advent of sperm banks, artificial insemination, and availability of abortion, men have a less active and controlling role in human reproduction than they once did. Perhaps to the great displeasure of men, women are no longer required to have sex with them to reproduce, even if they are heterosexual.
"Nadya Suleman, who has made headlines in the past few weeks after giving birth to octuplets in southern California, says it has been more than eight years since she last had sex – despite having 14 kids under the age of 7."
Because women share an unequal burden when it comes to partnered sex, one might argue that if men don't change their expectations and habits to meet the needs of modern women, they may find women less available for sex, especially if and when the negative social stigmatism associated with being a "single woman" diminishes. Of course, a woman's desire to reproduce may work to the benefit of men, but still, I sense some women are finding masturbation fulfills their sexual need, and while masturbation may not fulfill their need for emotional and physical intimacy, a pet may.
Next Sections: "It Just Happened" & Are 'Accidents' Less than Accidental?
