The study also stated that these students had more “forced sex,” which would be rape in most cases. And the study reported that these students engaged in more “high risk” sexual behavior, which suggests unprotected sex with partners who may have AIDS or some similar grim disease. One-third of those who had been involved in homosexual relations related that they were heterosexual themselves.
The study itself was based upon 17,220 public health surveys. The particular surveys were from 2005 and 2007, and the Youth Risk Behavior Study is conducted by the New York City Department of Health every two years. Out of the students who participated in the study, 7,261 reported having had sexual intercourse. Among males, 93.1 percent reported sexual relations with only females; 3.2 percent reported only homosexual relations; and 3.7 percent reported heterosexual and homosexual relations. Females who had sexual relations reported that 88.1 percent had been only with males; 3.2 percent had been only homosexual; and 8.7 percent reported both heterosexual and homosexual relations. Among sexually-active teenagers, 9.3 percent reported only one sexual partner.
Predictably, advocates of state intervention in the sexual mores and education of children cited the study as proof that more public health messages were needed. Dr. Susan Blank, Assistant Commissioner of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, said that it was troubling, but not surprising, that students with homosexual and heterosexual sex also had higher rates of violence and also dangerous health exposure. “It has been shown in the literature that students who have both male and female partners have a lot of adverse health problems,” she reported. Preeti Pathela, author of the study and a research scientist at the New York City Department of Health, noted that though there were no comparable national studies, other state reports showed lower levels of teenagers with multiple sexual partners.
What would be more interesting is a study that showed the rates of promiscuous sex among religiously serious families and among irreligious families, between families in which the teenager was born out of wedlock and the general population or in which the mother of the student was on welfare. Another very interesting study might be the incidence of sexual intercourse among home-schooled children or the number of different sexual partners home-schooled students had as well as the incidence among them of homosexual sex, rape, and dangerously unprotected sex.
It would also be fascinating to compare the sexual activity, sexual violence, and sexually transmitted diseases in public schools with the same rates in parochial schools, yeshivas, and other religious schools. It might also be helpful to compare questions about dangerous and destructive adolescent promiscuity and the respondents’ beliefs about the sinfulness of fornication and of homosexuality. What these sorts of studies might reveal is some groundbreaking social research such as: (1) abstinence protects teenagers from diseases, emotional disorders, violence, and pregnancy; (2) serious marital commitment leads to happy, healthy, and financially secure families; and (3) strong religious foundations are the best means of achieving these desirable results.
Perhaps these will be in the next study commissioned by bureaucrats in the City of New York.