The burqa is an effective deterrent to sex outside marriage, says US sociologist

The burqa really works. When you cover your women head to toe with cloth to keep them from being viewed by men outside their family, and you keep them strictly segregated from men throughout their growing years until they get married, you’re going to have less premarital sex.

That was the Rev Paul Sullins’ reaction to a new study on sex outside marriage. Sullins is a sociologist at the Catholic University of America.

The study, authored by Amy Adamczyk and John Jay doctoral student Brittany E Hayes, states:

All major world religions discourage sex outside of marriage, but they are not all equally effective in shaping behavior.

Their findings reveal that Jews and Christians were the moist most boisterous when it came to nookie outside marriage. Ninety-four percent of Jews admitted to having sex outside marriage, while 79 percent of Christians reported the same.

The study was compiled using data from the Demographic and Health Surveys, which are funded by US Agency for International Development. The results were taken from the answers to questions on religious affiliation, marital status and sexual behavior outside of marriage made by individual respondents.

The study revealed that  only 43 percent of Muslims and 19 percent of Hindus reported engaging in sex outside of marriage.

Sullins reportedly stated he was not surprised by the findings, then came out with his “burqa barrier” comment.


23 responses to “The burqa is an effective deterrent to sex outside marriage, says US sociologist”

  1. Trevor Blake says:

    No mention of Nikah Mu’Tah [link]. The Qur’an allows for temporary marriages that last the duration of the act of sex. No mention of the death penalty for homosexuality under Sharia, homosexuals not having access to marriage by law. So, yes, what sexual purists these Muslims are.

  2. PJH says:

    The study revealed that only 43 percent of Muslims…

    “Only”? Doesn’t seem that effective to me.

  3. remigius says:

    I’ve had sex outside, but I’ve never been married. Does it still count?

  4. barriejohn says:

    From what I have heard, putting a burqa on the Muzzies’ cocks would be more effective!

  5. Ryan morrigan says:

    We gotta get burkas on those altar boys quick!

  6. AgentCormac says:

    I’ve linked to this before – and what better excuse to do so again. Enjoy!

  7. polomint38 says:

    Their findings reveal that Jews and Christians were the moist boisterous when it came to nookie outside marriage.

    Is this a typo or did you mean moist not most.

  8. Lazy Susan says:

    All major world religions discourage sex outside of marriage

    Why, exactly? I put it to the court that the motivation of these religions is control of its members by sexual repression. Is there any evidence that extramarital nookie is actually harmful to society? I can see that individuals may be hurt, but as far as I know it has been going on since forever, and recent DNA surveys have revealed a surprisingly high figure of children not fully genetically related to Mum and Dad.

    There is a parallel to drug prohibition. We could make extramarital nookie a criminal offence, but in this country we don’t. Why not, precisely? Most people would agree it is morally reprehensible – though it *may* be good for society – is there any research on this?

    only 43 percent of Muslims […] reported engaging in sex outside of marriage

    Given that by reporting this, your Muslim is admitting to a capital offence, I put it to the court that the actual figure is higher.

    A fascinating topic.

  9. remigius says:

    In western cultures adultery is no big deal, whereas in both muslim and hindu society it is punished by social ostracism, or even death. Could this have a bearing on the figures, rather than what sort of dress they wear?

  10. Barry Duke says:

    Whoops, that was one of my more embarrassing typos. Corrected. Funny just the same.

  11. Broga says:

    @Lazy Susan: The advent of DNA is a new factor in marital harmony or disharmony. Many men are now confronted with the news that they are not the biological parent of the child they loved. The royal family are famously not exempt and speculation is rife about them. Many aristocratic families, so proud of the line being preserved, would be shattered to know that the line is that of a butler or valet.

    I have wondered, and speculated with my wife, if I would feel the same towards my child or children, and we are close and I am deeply attached to them, if I knew I was not their biological father. The truth is, I really don’t know. My wife says I need have no concerns. But she would say that, wouldn’t she?

  12. Broga says:

    Whoops! That sentence should read, “I really don’t know how I would feel.” Just as well my wife doesn’t read these posts.

  13. Matt Westwood says:

    “The burqa really works. When you cover your women … you’re going to have less premarital sex.”

    He’s probably right. Less premarital sex: very bad. Rip off your burqa. If you want.

  14. Trevor Blake says:

    “All major world religions discourage sex outside of marriage… ”

    Except those that don’t, such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam – all of which expound in their holy books the legal codes for sex with slaves.

  15. barriejohn says:

    Trevor Blake: Along with the rape of your enemies’ wives and daughters – which obviously doesn’t count – and multiple wives (700 in King Solomon’s case) – which, to any sensible person, makes a complete mockery of “the sacred institution of marriage”. To say nothing (though I will) of Solomon’s 300 concubines!

  16. jay says:

    ” I put it to the court that the motivation of these religions is control of its members by sexual repression. Is there any evidence that extramarital nookie is actually harmful to society? ”

    Actually, pre birth control, it probably did have a rational basis. Attempting to insure that children were automatically incorporated into a family obligated to support them probably reduced potential financial drains on society.

    Unfortunately in some sub-cultures it’s having children outside of marriage (or other similar parenting commitment) that has become the norm. Many of these girls have at least some access to birth control but choose not to use.

  17. Lazy Susan says:

    jay – “Attempting to insure that children were automatically incorporated into a family obligated to support them probably reduced potential financial drains on society.”

    AFAIK that is the current legal position in the UK. When you marry, you are responsible for the issue, whether it is yours or not. That is to say, the man is responsible for any children the woman produces, irrespective of who fathered them. I suppose this is because the law was drafted when it was generally not possible to tell who had fathered whom – though if Iago had got off with Desdemona I guess Othello might have had some concrete evidence.

    broga – I think you would feel the same towards your children even if you found out they were not “yours.” Being a Dad is what counts, not being a sperm donor.

    But there are benefits to cheating, both for men and women. Otherwise we would not have evolved the desire to do it. (Notice the difference between this and the religious approach, which would say something along the lines of “people cheat because they are sinful by nature.”)

    Men get to spread their seed further by cuckolding other men. Those men who are successful at this, produce more children, who propagate the behaviour. Women get to produce children with “better quality” men than their husband, and get him to bear the cost of bringing up her offspring. So the woman gets to shop around; and her children will propagate that behaviour.

    These are purely biological, evolutionary benefits. Is there any societal benefit? A quick search on Google reveals that Togo has the highest infidelity rate, and sub-Saharan Africa in general. So perhaps there’s not so much societal benefit.

  18. Robster says:

    I’m rather surprised that the muzzy deluded have any time left for nookie after praying to big Al & Mo five times a bloody day. Do they need to point Percy eastwards when indulging? Is there any Islamic porn? Wouldn’t that be a hoot!

  19. RabbitOnAStick says:

    Has anyone been to the middle east before making such statements as muslims don’t engage in adultery. Please.
    Dubai is full of whores. Adultery, and sex with all and sundry is a national sport. Pre-marital sex for males is obligatory. Both men and women engage in ‘adulterous’ sex. There are areas well known where fully covered ‘local’ Arab women go for sex. The men are just open about all the whores that they have in tow. However the phrase used is ‘having a girlfriend’.

    Are all those Egyptian, Russian, Lebanese, Uzbek, Tajik, Kazakh, Kenyan, Sierra Leone, Thai, Filipino, Malay and Chinese women all working at Starbucks? And only using the hotel bars and clubs at night for a quick drink from making all those lattes. [Sorry if I left countries out there are women from every country in the world there].
    Homosexuality does exist in Dubai but people are careful. Several hotel bars are famous for their gay Emirates crew sing a long nights. There is a large Filipino population and homosexuality does seem common.
    A weekend in Bahrain is full of Saudi’s whoring drinking and having as much sex as they can cram into their weekend. Bahrain has the famous ’tissue-bar’! Use your imagination.

    Is this weekend’s Abu Dhabi Grand Prick only for car enthusiasts.

    And adultery in Islam is allowed its called having four wives.

  20. barriejohn says:

    Robster: There’s loads, but I don’t think that it’s directed at Muslim men! Judging by the way that “Asian men” (ie “Muslim men”) have been treating young women and girls in some British cities, they’re not averse to shagging the infidels.

  21. barriejohn says:

    Sex with babies is apparently allowed, as many sites aver. I don’t suppose that that would count as “sex outside marriage”, either:

  22. barriejohn says:

    ROAS: Did you forget the widespread practice of young Muslim men having anal sex together to satisfy their lust and give them some experience of sexual intercourse? Of course, this is nothing like that abhorrent western practice of “gay sex” for which the punishment is stoning to death!

  23. RabbitOnAStick says:

    Clearly did!
    As too the camels, sheep, donkeys and other ruminating jennets.

    Many years ago the Gulf News reported a sub-continent muslim (Bangladeshi I think) sentenced to prison for having sex with a camel (he was a farm labourer). His defence was he ‘fell in love with the camel’ and was mesmerised by its beauty.

    He went to prison the camel was of course logically slaughtered as it was ‘haram’ and couldn’t either become pregnant or eaten. As the offspring would too be haram and the meat ‘poisoned’.

    Which puts into perspective the behaviour of that lot when a camel was knocked over on a main road and had it’s jaw broken so it could neither eat nor drink so it sat there its jaw hanging by sinew and flesh sad and desperate eventually dying a horrid death from pain, suffering lack of water and food. It couldn’t be put down as that was murder.