“0.5% of women stated they were virgins and reported virgin births” (2013) | Hacker News Reader

“0.5% of women stated they were virgins and reported virgin births” (2013)

bmj.com

29 pointsbookofjoe30 comments

Conclusions 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.

Years ago, I was acquainted with a public defender that told me they had a client swearing they were not the daddy of the child in question and providing supporting evidence of this statement by asserting "Because my dad never fathered any children."

I think the above conclusion statement is an incredibly delicate way of saying "Wow, US sex ed has some serious deficiencies, especially in some communities where religious values actively incentivize certain inaccurate claims or fudging a bit about some details."

"What an unusually low Lizardman's Constant!" is my first reaction here.

It's also possible to become pregnant through non-penetrative sex, which may be the case for these women.

But is it possible really ? People are so likely to lie on this subject that how can you even have.. a "ground truth" for lack of better word

Yes, it is. If semen got on someone's hand at the wrong time, this could result.

I still don't see how that could lead to pregnancy. Could you please elaborate?

Well, you see, if semen finds its way into the vagina, pregnancy is a very real chance. So, if a woman gets semen on her hand, and then touches her genitals, she could get pregnant.

It's an option - it may be that some of the people involved are unaware of all the possible ways one can get pregnant, and I feel like those who've signed a chastity pledge are also the ones most likely to not mention any sort of acts they've performed, and instead just deny having had sex (which is possibly technically true).

Yes, it has been documented. Sperm can survive the digestive track:

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/teen-girl-vagina-preg...

Exactly. Someone who has taken a virginity pledge is more likely to have an "everything but penetration" sex life. This is the group most likely to have pregnancy without penetration. I'm really surprised the article didn't address this.

And they're more likely to be unaware that non-penetrative sex can cause pregnancy. Gah, sex ed is really underwhelming in most places.

The article does address it. Just in an polite way, with a lot of jargon.

I honestly did not saw that anywhere (I did not review every word do it may have hid somewhere).

Anyway, it is supposed to be a scientific article and not a Sunday church sermon so they should use all the words. The fact that they do not lowers the value of the article to nil.

I wanted to post the same comment. I read the article without going into details ("diagonally" as we say in France) and nowhere I saw anything about any activity which ends with ejaculation and then the sperm somehow making its way to the virgin destination.

I would bet that this accounts for all the miraculous cases.

It is a pity that sexual education is so bad, a lot of tragedies could have been avoided.

I can't find a link to the ethnography right now, but the Trobriand Island culture doesn't consider sex to be a cause of pregnancy. The reasons:

- People 'too ugly to fuck' get pregnant anyway

- People get pregnant who say they haven't had sex

I also remember their proof: "I was fishing for 10 months therefore my wife cannot possibly have become pregnant by having sex"

0.5% of women didn't understand the question.

TLDR: A survey asked respondents over time both "have you ever been pregnant" and "have you had vaginal intercourse" and some percentage, especially of young people said "yes" to pregnant and "no" to having had intercourse which is confusing.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see any legitimate follow up to validate that "having been pregnant" translated to actually giving birth (which to be fair, it often doesn't in the case of miscarriage or abortion), so it's imposisble to validate, but I'm especially skeptical given that when they asked the sex of these "virgins" children, and 60% of the respondents claimed to give birth to a boy. Which seems unrealistic by the odds.

Anyhow, I remember taking "health" surveys in middle school, and I can say honestly, that many kids lie on those in the most absurd ways possible, especially after they tell them it's confidential. I sure did because I was immature and thought it would be hilarious if the survey taker thought 13 year-olds were doing hard drugs daily. I really doubt this is anything more than that.

and 60% of the respondents claimed to give birth to a boy. Which seems unrealistic by the odds.

Actually, that detail isn't so wild. More boys are born than girls to begin with and 60 percent isn't crazy out of line, statistically speaking. I would be with you if 100 percent claimed it was a boy or even, say, 90 percent. But 60 percent is not actually some wildly out of line statistic.

Yeah, I looked it up and the average in developed countries seems to be 51%ish give birth to boys. I briefly tried to find if there was a correlation between younger mother age and likelihood of having a boy, and couldn't find any good info to support a difference. But with a sample size of 45 virgins, I agree it's within the margin of error, it's just weird.

My personal theory was that it corresponded with societal preferences for male children. Ie, if someone was lying, they just say the gender of the child that they would prefer, and more people prefer male children. But then I researched how strong societal preference really is towards male children, and the studies seems inconclusive, so doesn't seem like a theory worth floating legitimately.

My recollection is that if the first born is male, a married couple is statistically less likely to divorce. So first born females are more likely to be only children or at least not have any full-blooded siblings.

I've had conversations with my sons about this. Men seem to want one girl and one boy. Women tend to care less about the gender of their children. My oldest son has suggested this likely reflects a desire to pass on both genes. The way that happens is impacted by the gender of the offspring for men, but not for women.

That's all I know about gender preference in offspring and seems irrelevant to the problem space in question.

This is the scary thing about sharing swimming pools.

Gene pools?

What do DNA tests of these children typically reveal?

I'm not sure that is really the point. It sounds like they are trying to understand why it is being reported. It is already well understood to be impossible. Perhaps they were unconscious? I don't know.

"In a US nationally representative cohort, we found that 0.8% of pregnancies were reported by virgins and not related to use of assisted reproductive technology, and these women were more likely than other virgins to have signed chastity pledges, to endorse knowledge of birth control, and to have parents who endorsed items indicative of lower levels of communication about sex and birth control."

I don't think that's it. I think it's people who are utterly devoted to a fault in regards to their personal beliefs, or in the dark about what constitutes sex and what risk factors exist for activities that can lead to impregnation.

The data hint at an anwser in the results. And I think they spill it out in the limitation part:

"some participants may have misunderstood the definition of sexual intercourse."

It’s not completely impossible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis#Mammals

It's probable that it's happened at least once in a human, but DNA testing would be the only way to know for sure.

If I'm reading this right the only theoretical basis of this would result in a female offspring? Interesting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com