Girl Athletes Less Sexually Promiscuous
This is not new, but it’s worth repeating and discussing here.
A paper from the Journal of Health and Social Behavior explains a study:
The authors have an explanation.
Is this an argument for Title 9, the Federal mandate that imposes a rigid affirmative action quota on sports for both high schools and colleges?
Some might argue it is, but we suspect that the people most happy about Title 9 are the same folks who want to hand out contraceptives to 11 year-olds.
In fact, Title 9 is a classic example of elitist social engineering. Feminists have managed to impose a rigid quota, demanding that equal money be spent on girls sports, quite independent of how interested girls (and college women) are in sports.
Having said that, however, parents ought to encourage their daughters to participate in sports. Just because feminists want to mandate an activity doesn’t make it bad.
The mandate is bad, but the activity is good.
A paper from the Journal of Health and Social Behavior explains a study:
Using multivariate analysis of covariance to test hypotheses about the effects of sports and sexual behavior on a sample of 611 Western New York adolescents, this study concludes that athletic participation and gender interact to influence adolescent sexual outcomes. Female athletes report significantly lower rates of sexual activity than female nonathletes . . .But just why would this be?
The authors have an explanation.
Because athletic participation increases boys’ social position within the high school status hierarchy, it may be easier for them to request or even demand sex from girls. Athletic participation also augments the social status of girls, but in contrast to boys, the status enhancement provides them with the power to resist male pressures. Social status accrued in this manner gives girls an alternative to trading sex for popularity or self esteem. Athletic participation enhances the value of the package of resources that both girls and boys bring to the sexual bargaining table.This is all sensible enough.
Is this an argument for Title 9, the Federal mandate that imposes a rigid affirmative action quota on sports for both high schools and colleges?
Some might argue it is, but we suspect that the people most happy about Title 9 are the same folks who want to hand out contraceptives to 11 year-olds.
In fact, Title 9 is a classic example of elitist social engineering. Feminists have managed to impose a rigid quota, demanding that equal money be spent on girls sports, quite independent of how interested girls (and college women) are in sports.
Having said that, however, parents ought to encourage their daughters to participate in sports. Just because feminists want to mandate an activity doesn’t make it bad.
The mandate is bad, but the activity is good.
posted by John McAdams at 7:31 PM
1 Comments:
That study is about 10 years old. While it COULD be true that female high school athletes are less promiscuous than non-athletes, studies have been done for college female athletes showing much higher rates of binge drinking and some other destructive behaviors. Look at all the hazing scandals where college female athletic teams wrote vulgar things on girls, forced them to chug alcohol, and got them to do sexually suggestive things. An argument for Title 9 - certainly not.
Post a Comment
<< Home