US-based study in the British Medical Journal reports 0.5% of the women in the study reported unassi - Polidicks

[URL="http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f7102"]Like a virgin (mother): analysis of data from a longitudinal, US population representative sample survey[/URL] [B]TL;DR version:[/B] In a study started in 1995 that was designed to test the reliability of self-reported virgin pregnancies, 45 women reported pulling a Virgin Mary, and more frequently tended to come from a background where they would need to hide evidence of fooling around (chastity pledges, etc.). [QUOTE][B]Abstract[/B] [B]Objective[/B] To estimate the incidence of self report of pregnancy without sexual intercourse (virgin pregnancy) and factors related to such reporting, in a population representative group of US adolescents and young adults. [B]Design[/B] Longitudinal, population representative sample survey. [B]Setting[/B] Nationally representative, multiethnic National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, United States. [B]Participants[/B] 7870 women enrolled at wave I (1995) and completing the most recent wave of data collection (wave IV; 2008-09). [B]Main outcome measures[/B] Self reports of pregnancy and birth without sexual intercourse. [B]Results[/B] 45 women (0.5%) reported at least one virgin pregnancy unrelated to the use of assisted reproductive technology. Although it was rare for dates of sexual initiation and pregnancy consistent with virgin pregnancy to be reported, it was more common among women who signed chastity pledges or whose parents indicated lower levels of communication with their children about sex and birth control. [B]Conclusions[/B] Around 0.5% of women consistently affirmed their status as virgins and did not use assisted reproductive technology, yet reported virgin births. Even with numerous enhancements and safeguards to optimize reporting accuracy, researchers may still face challenges in the collection and analysis of self reported data on potentially sensitive topics.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Of 7870 eligible women, 5340 reported a pregnancy, of whom 45 (0.8% of pregnant women) reported a virgin pregnancy (table 1⇓). Perceived importance of religion was associated with virginity but not with virgin pregnancy. The prevalence of abstinence pledges was 15.5%. The virgins who reported pregnancies were more likely to have pledged chastity (30.5%) than the non-virgins who reported pregnancies (15.0%, P=0.01) or the other virgins (21.2%, P=0.007).[/QUOTE]

Looks like you Brits* recorded a staggering amount of human parthenogenesis cases. It would be odd if human parthenogenesis was possible. *Is it even the british here? or is the Americans, since I see BMJ but in the paper it says U.S school populations and so on..

[QUOTE=Dysgalt;43250110]Looks like you Brits* recorded a staggering amount of human parthenogenesis cases. It would be odd if human parthenogenesis was possible. *Is it even the british here? or is the Americans, since I see BMJ but in the paper it says U.S school populations and so on..[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Like a virgin (mother): analysis of data from a longitudinal, US population representative sample survey[/QUOTE] [QUOTE][B]Setting[/B] Nationally representative, multiethnic National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, United States.[/QUOTE] The OP and the paper's abstract make it blindingly clear American women were being studied. The [B]thread title[/B] even does.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;43250137]The OP and the paper's abstract make it blindingly clear American women were being studied. The [B]thread title[/B] even does.[/QUOTE] Was referring to the research team.

[QUOTE=Dysgalt;43250542]Was referring to the research team.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Amy H Herring, professor<1, 2>, Samantha M Attard, PhD candidate<2, 3>, Penny Gordon-Larsen, professor<2, 3>, William H Joyner, the reverend<4>, Carolyn T Halpern, professor<2, 5> 1 Department of Biostatistics, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB 7420, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA 2 Carolina Population Center, Chapel Hill, NC, USA 3 Department of Nutrition, Gillings School of Global Public Health and School of Medicine, NC, USA 4 The Chapel of the Cross, Chapel Hill, NC, USA 5 Department of Maternal and Child Health, Gillings School of Global Public Health, NC, USA[/QUOTE] American team. American subjects. American facilities. British medical journal.

[QUOTE=Dysgalt;43250542]Was referring to the research team.[/QUOTE]I've never met someone who had a reading allergy before.

Jesus II: Electric Boogaloo

More like ".5% of women don't want to admit they slept with Dirty Joe from down the block and also aren't particularly imaginative".

[QUOTE=mugofdoom;43252748]More like ".5% of women don't want to admit they slept with Dirty Joe from down the block and also aren't particularly imaginative".[/QUOTE] Conservative household. Among those there's no excuse for having sex before getting married.

[QUOTE=O Cheerios O;43252811]Conservative household. Among those there's no excuse for having sex before getting married.[/QUOTE] Living in a conservative household would indeed be a reason to not want to admit to sleeping with Dirty Joe from down the block.

Not the worst way to try to cover up such things, but it's still pretty stupid.

[QUOTE=mugofdoom;43252848]Living in a conservative household would indeed be a reason to not want to admit to sleeping with Dirty Joe from down the block.[/QUOTE] You don't get it. Getting pregnant outside of marriage means you'd get alienated in conservative households, almost no matter who the father of the child is.

Doesn't speak well for honesty in surveys either, but everyone should have already known that they were unreliable.

[QUOTE=O Cheerios O;43252864]You don't get it. Getting pregnant outside of marriage means you'd get alienated in conservative households, almost no matter who the father of the child is.[/QUOTE] What if the father is God himself?

[QUOTE=O Cheerios O;43252864]You don't get it. Getting pregnant outside of marriage means you'd get alienated in conservative households, almost no matter who the father of the child is.[/QUOTE] How do I not get it? I'm pretty much agreeing with you. I live in rural Missouri, an area where what you're describing is extremely common. These .5% of women are probably younger, conservative women who have either yet to be married at the time of pregnancy, or are pregnant by someone that their highly conservative family does not like. The latter happens more often than you think.

[QUOTE=Appellation;43252870]Doesn't speak well for honesty in surveys either, but everyone should have already known that they were unreliable.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Objective To estimate the incidence of self report of pregnancy without sexual intercourse (virgin pregnancy) and factors related to such reporting, in a population representative group of US adolescents and young adults[/QUOTE] It isn't like this study wasn't designed to specifically quantify this tendency to lie and cover up, or anything.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;43252899]It isn't like this study wasn't designed to specifically quantify this tendency to lie and cover up, or anything.[/QUOTE] Could also have been looking for extreme stupidity.

The wording of everything makes my head spin around. Virgins reporting pregnancies, pledging chastity... and other virgins. Why. If they're pregnant, they're kind of, like, no virgins anymore, no? And doesn't word "virgin" imply chastity by itself? I mean, they're lying, there's no sense in playing along.

Did these "researchers" ever stop and think that maybe one in every 200 people is Jesus?

[QUOTE=Mingebox;43254598]Did these "researchers" ever stop and think that maybe one in every 200 people is Jesus?[/QUOTE] Yeah, I just thought about it as well. Doesn't that kinda break down all the saint-ness of the biblical events? What's so fancy abour that Mary girl when 0.5% of all pull virgin birth like no big deal.

I know it's [I]extremely[/I] unlikely and all of these cases are most probably untrue but isn't there [I]any[/I] theoretical possibility that through some mutation, it might happen? I mean, without things getting even more shenanigansy, it's safe to assume the child could only be female as well as the woman only has X chromosomes to pass on and no Y, but is there absolutely no possibility an embryo with full copy of the mother's DNA might form instead of one carrying just half of it, and begin evolving? I am not very well vested in biology please don't hurt me for a stupid question

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43252885]What if the father is God himself?[/QUOTE] Call the news, the daughter had sexual intercourse with a ghost. [QUOTE=Mingebox;43254598]Did these "researchers" ever stop and think that maybe one in every 200 people is Jesus?[/QUOTE] Omg omg omg omg [media]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbyyl_joan-osborne-what-if-god-was-one-of_news[/media]

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43252885]What if the father is God himself?[/QUOTE] Forty-five new Jesuses hath been brought into our world. Hallelujah. But is it Jesuses or Jesusi or Jesi?

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;43255104]I know it's [I]extremely[/I] unlikely and all of these cases are most probably untrue but isn't there [I]any[/I] theoretical possibility that through some mutation, it might happen? I mean, without things getting even more shenanigansy, it's safe to assume the child could only be female as well as the woman only has X chromosomes to pass on and no Y, but is there absolutely no possibility an embryo with full copy of the mother's DNA might form instead of one carrying just half of it, and begin evolving? I am not very well vested in biology please don't hurt me for a stupid question[/QUOTE] It's not possible. Conception, as we know it through our planet's biological development, requires two gametes to interact with one another. There is no physical possibility for a human (or any animal) to become pregnant without a sperm cell entering an ovum. If you're pregnant, you likely had sex. Other possibilities include: Guy cums on the girl's hands, or his own, (or any item really) and inserts said item into the vaginal canal. While not exactly common, as sperm die relatively quickly when exposed to air, it is possible and happens from time to time. But basically, no, there is no such thing as humans reproducing through division or multiplication or mutations that copy/paste human life. If it did happen, it would break the very foundation of the concept of natural biology. (in humans) Sperm has to get in an egg, no other way around it; how the sperm gets there can be debated as sexual intercourse or not, based on situation, but it does mean the two have to be there. [editline]20th December 2013[/editline] no offense but this is a very dumb question

[QUOTE=Loriborn;43255380]It's not possible. Conception, as we know it through our planet's biological development, requires two gametes to interact with one another. There is no physical possibility for a human (or any animal) to become pregnant without a sperm cell entering an ovum. If you're pregnant, you likely had sex. Other possibilities include: Guy cums on the girl's hands, or his own, (or any item really) and inserts said item into the vaginal canal. While not exactly common, as sperm die relatively quickly when exposed to air, it is possible and happens from time to time. But basically, no, there is no such thing as humans reproducing through division or multiplication or mutations that copy/paste human life. If it did happen, it would break the very foundation of the concept of natural biology. (in humans) Sperm has to get in an egg, no other way around it; how the sperm gets there can be debated as sexual intercourse or not, based on situation, but it does mean the two have to be there. [editline]20th December 2013[/editline] no offense but this is a very dumb question[/QUOTE] in some rare occurrences, animals can go through parthenogenesis, however this has not been seen naturally in mammals. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis[/url] so the question isn't dumb, just uninformed. your answer "There is no physical possibility for a human (or any animal) to become pregnant without a sperm cell entering an ovum." is also uninformed.

new study confirms that 0.5% of these women don't actually know what sex is

If it were somehow true then all it would mean is that Jesus isn't as special as we thought he was.

[QUOTE=gudman;43254496]The wording of everything makes my head spin around. Virgins reporting pregnancies, pledging chastity... and other virgins. Why. If they're pregnant, they're kind of, like, no virgins anymore, no? And doesn't word "virgin" imply chastity by itself? I mean, they're lying, there's no sense in playing along.[/QUOTE] Good job not reading the OP, where it clearly states in the abstract was to try and quantify the lying and other factors that lead to reports of virgin pregnancies. Everyone knows the "virgin" preggers made contact with semen somehow and are lying, it's understanding that lying and the contributing factors that's important. [QUOTE=omggrass;43255494]in some rare occurrences, animals can go through parthenogenesis, however this has not been seen naturally in mammals. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis[/url] so the question isn't dumb, just uninformed. your answer "There is no physical possibility for a human (or any animal) to become pregnant without a sperm cell entering an ovum." is also uninformed.[/QUOTE] I think the scientific method dictates that we go, "are these women parthenogenic mutants, or are they lying about breaking chastity pledges?" and pick the more probable answer. [QUOTE=a dumb bear;43255794]new study confirms that 0.5% of these women don't actually know what sex is[/QUOTE] 0.5% of women still have a daddy's-little-girl relationship with their fathers but still want to fuck, more like it. :v: