Background

Since the second half of the 20th century, the adolescent age initiation for masturbation, coitus, and oral-genital stimulation has decreased with a concomitant increase in adolescent high-risk sexual behavior [1,2]. Empirical studies purport that precocious adolescent sexual behavior ostensibly stems from the parenting actor(s) rearing experience [3-13]. Adolescents raised in other than biological parenting households are patently identified as most likely to exhibit: (1) precocious sexual maturation; (2) a preeminent incidence of sexual proscribed behavior; and (3) greater number of lifetime sexual partners [14-16]. Of the possible biological parenting models, the non-resident (absentee) birth father is identified as the parenting household most accountable for offspring’s precocious sexual maturation, greater lifetime number of sexual partners, increased incidence of proscribed sexual behavior, and an increased incidence of teenage pregnancy [4,11,14,17,18]. Biblarz and Raftery report that after controlling for socioeconomic status, a single mother household more closely resembled that of an intact nuclear family-with the single father parenting household most responsible for offspring’s greater lifetime number of sexual partners, increased incidence of sexual proscribed behavior, and increased incidence of teenage pregnancy [19].

Scholars posit that children from non-resident father households experience unstable and conflicted parental relationships [4]. Scholars posit that the non-resident father parenting model demonstrates to offspring that fathers are untrustworthy in their sexual relationship commitments as well as sexually opportunistic [5,20]. In turn, children reared in non-resident father parenting households view reproduction as simply mating rather than parenting … resulting in adolescents’ precocious sexual rites of passage, greater lifetime number of sexual partners, increased incidence of proscribed sexual behavior, and unstable relationships [5,21]. A companion posit is that the maternal single-parent family has less ‘parental control’ (i.e., father investment) than the nuclear family, instigating premature sexual rites of passage and proscribed sexual behavior in offspring [6,20].

Key to ascribing the precocious and proscribed sexual behavior of offspring to absentee father parenting households is in the crafting of the independent variable ‘father absent parenting household’. This assumption teeters about the interpretation of the ‘non-resident father household’ construct. A non-resident father household may permanently or provisionally result from death, divorce, separation, cohabitation, re-marriage, spousal infidelity, or incarceration. Each genesis of the non-resident father household shapes the nature and just as importantly, the degree of father investment (parenting) experienced by offspring. Passive and active parenting affects the social, emotional, and sexual maturation of offspring and stands as an unaccounted for metric of the dependent variable. Sons and daughters in non-resident father households are not necessarily ‘fatherless’, not necessarily ‘un-parented’, and not necessarily barred from their birth father’s ‘parenting investment’. Sons and daughters in non-resident father households whose fathers are deceased or incarcerated may present with atypical sexual behavior as a result of separation trauma, rather than from father parenting absence. As such, unaccounted for qualities and quantities of ‘parenting father’ continue to plague any cause-and-effect inference applied to this research question when the metric of ‘fathering’ is inferred exclusively through the lens of the maternal parent’s authentication.

Concomitantly, the birth mother in a single-parent family may not be ‘parenting’ as a single parent. Her offspring may experience parenting from other male or female parenting actors-who may also be committed and/or transient sexual partners. Furthermore, the (absentee) non-resident father independent variable is routinely constructed from the birth mother’s perspective, archival history, birth mother’s testimony-or from the testimony of offspring raised by the birth mother [22]. Oftentimes the ‘absentee birth father’ is not consulted or cannot be consulted to validate the constitution of the ‘single birth-mother’ family (household) experience. Accordingly, the non-resident birth father single-parent family has been ostensibly omitted in the literature, thus limiting any comparative inference between the birth mother and birth father ‘single-parent family’ when examining this research question.

The result is a miscellany of research designs that isolate reconstituted biological parenting actors, at varying stages and durations in adolescent development. Such imprecision has contributed to the inferential ambiguity in the parenting effects of birth mothers and birth fathers relative to the sexual rites of passage and high-risk sexual behavior of their offspring [23-25]. Unquestionably, the timing, duration, and medley of transitioning parenting actors of a reconstituted parenting household present as key factors in interpreting the effects of a non-resident father household on the sexual maturation and sexual behavior of offspring [20,26].

These research design threats in non-resident father ‘parenting’ studies perpetuate an empirical ambiguity in the literature. By example, scholars report that the non-resident father has a minimal effect on the sexual maturation and behavior of offspring and that childhood adversity and not necessarily father absence per se is responsible for the reported precocious sexual rites of passage and increased levels of sexual high-risk behavior of daughters of non-resident fathers [3,9,24,27,28]. Conversely, scholars report that the non-resident father household is a precursor to adolescent precocious sexual rites of passage as well as their sexual high-risk behavior—with daughters more adversely impacted [29,30].

The application of ‘passive gene-environment correlation’ theory suggests that parenting actors play a minimal role in the sexual maturation of their offspring [31,32]. Genetic-environment theories of sexual maturation suggest that previous research may have overestimated the role of family structure (i.e., parenting actors) in offspring’s reproductive maturation. To this point, Mendle, et al. have posited that the association between offspring daughters’ precocious age at first coitus (rite of passage) may be due to maternal externalizing gene expression (i.e., ‘passive gene-environment expression’) by offspring daughters and not necessarily a consequence of family structure … or in this case father parenting absence or presence [33]. They suggest that the accelerated timing of first intercourse in daughters is a genetic expression that increases the likelihood that succeeding offspring daughters are reared in father absent households. This contradicts research purporting that the point of exposure (i.e., developmental stage of sexual maturation) and duration of father-absence, are factors in the observed precocious sexual maturation and the high-risk sexual practice of adolescent offspring [22,23].

Of conspicuous note, (1) age at first coitus and/or (2) number of lifetime coital partners consistently serve as the dependent variable construct of ‘accelerated sexual maturation’. Limiting the dependent variable to one or two variables fails to account for the sexual behavior repertoire that comprises the construct of ‘accelerated sexual maturation’ or sexual maturation (e.g., oral-genital stimulation, same-sex lifetime sexual partners, orgasm). Consequently, this miscellany of research designs tethered to the ambiguous construct of the dependent variable continue to vex an empirical consensus to the research question.

Within the contemporaneous body of research there lacks substantive empirical evidence regarding the degree to which the three comparative biological, birth parenting models (i.e., birth parents, birth father, and birth mother) contribute to the precocious onset of sexual rites of passage, greater number of lifetime sexual partners, and increased incidence of sexual proscribed behavior of offspring. Unequivocally, the specificational construct of ‘single-parent, biological father’ household is rarely accounted for when investigating this empiric research question. In turn, there is a ubiquitous research void to support health, social service, and education policy as well as praxis relative to single-parent, biological father, family households and the sexual maturation of their offspring. This novel study investigated the sexual rites of passage (age initiation) for an inclusive inventory of sexual behaviors as well as the number of lifetime sexual partners in male and female offspring reared in one of three exclusive birth-parenting models: (1) birth father, (2) birth mother, and (3) birth father and birth mother.

Methods

A retrospective cross-sectional survey utilizing a convenience sample was drawn from the general population of undergraduates at a public, north eastern, non-residential community college. The college enrolment was 23938 with a median age of 22.0 years. In all, 1846 instruments were submitted of which 16 instruments were discarded due to invalid or inconsistent responses. The 1830 respondents represented 7.6% of the undergraduate enrolment that semester. Of the 1830 respondents, 802 were male and 1028 were female.

Procedures

Respondents were recruited from intact Health Education course sections that were either required or elective courses for all but five of the college’s degree programs. Respondents were 18-years or older. Consent forms were obtained from each respondent. There were no identifiers linking respondents to their responses. Classroom seating was arranged in formal test-taking configuration. The in-class survey was voluntary, anonymous-with no incentives offered. Respondents opting out of the survey completed an in-class worksheet. Participants placed their instrument or worksheet in an unmarked sealed envelope and then into a cloaked ballot box. This study was sanctioned by the University’s Institutional Research Review Committee.

Instrumentation

The instrument recorded in part, demographics, race/ethnicity, and natal gender. The instrument recorded respondents’ masturbatory, oral-genital, and coital practices including initiation age, partner’s age at initiation, and number of lifetime sexual partners. Previous studies reported a .85 to .91 reliability coefficient for the instrument [34-38]. The instrument’s reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s Alpha) for ‘ever experienced’ masturbatory, oral-genital, and the range of coital practices under investigation in this study was .88 to .91.

Tests of significance

Tests of significance (SPSS IBM Advanced Statistics Version 24.0.0) were chi-square (χ²) for nominal variables; one-way ANOVA (F ), and ANCOVA for scaled variables, and Kaplan-Meier for life survival analysis. Type 1 error was set to .05.

Hypotheses

Respondents reported their parent actor(s) (e.g., biological, legally adopted, foster, step, grandparent(s), biological uncle/aunt, older sibling, etc.) for ages 13 through 20 years … with 13 years of age being the emergent age for first ejaculation of semen in boys and menarche in girls [39]. Respondents with missing data for any of the parenting years between 13 to 20 were deleted list wise. The independent variable ‘birth parent actors’ (hereafter Parenting Actors) was blocked at three levels: (1) exclusively parented by the birth father ( hereafter BioFather) from ages 13 through 20, (2) exclusively parented by the birth mother (hereafter BioMother) from ages 13 through 20, and (3) exclusively parented by birth father and birth mother (hereafter BioParents) from ages 13 through 20.

The following null hypotheses were tested:

H₁: There is no significant difference between Parenting Actors and male offspring’s age initiation for heterosexual oral-genital practices.

H₂: There is no significant difference between Parenting Actors and male offspring’s age initiation for first coitus.

H₃: There is no significant difference between Parenting Actors and male offspring’s age initiation for paternity.

H₄: There is no significant difference between Parenting Actors and male offspring’s high-risk coital behavior.

H₅: There is no significant difference between Parenting Actors and female offspring’s age initiation for heterosexual oral-genital practices.

H₆: There is no significant difference between Parenting Actors and female offspring’s age initiation for first coitus.

H₇: There is no significant difference between Parenting Actors and female offspring’s age initiation for maternity.

H₈: There is no significant difference between Parenting Actors and female offspring’s high-risk coital behavior.

Results

There was no significant difference between the sample (n=1830) and the college population (N=23,938) in age, gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, or marital status. Respondents’ race/ethnicity was 10.3% White, 24.7% African-descent, 43.1% Hispanic (non-White), 0.5% American Indian/Alaskan Native, 11.8% Asian or Pacific Islander, 5.8% multi-racial, and 3.8% other. The independent variable of Parenting Actors resulted in: BioFather (n=35); BioMother (n=362); and BioParents (n=639). There was no significant difference between Parenting Actors and the age of male offspring. There was a significant difference between Parenting Actors and the age of female offspring (F(2)=7.319, p=.001). BioFather female offspring (M=26.26, SD=9.25) were the oldest, BioParents female offspring (M=21.54, SD=4.38) the youngest, with both flanking BioMother female offspring (M=21.85, SD =5.06).

Age initiation for oral-genital behavior and first coitus of male offspring by Parenting Actors were means compared along with their survival curve (hereafter survival). Survival is the ‘time to event’-in this case offspring’s age to first experiencing an oral-genital or coital rite of passage.

The age of male offspring at first female performed fellatio did not significantly differ by Parenting Actors (Table 1). However, male offspring’s survival age at first female performed fellatio did significantly differ by Parenting Actors (Figure 1). By age 17, 100% of BioFather male offspring, 69.3% of BioMother male offspring, and 60.3% of BioParents male offspring had experienced female performed fellatio (X2(2, N = 286) = 14.322, p = .001).

Figure 1: Male Offspring's Birth Parents from Ages 13-20 at First Fellatio by Female.

The age of male offspring at first performed cunnilingus did not significantly differ by their Parenting Actors (Table 1) or for their survival. The age of male offspring at first female performed fellatio while performing cunnilingus did not significantly differ by Parenting Actors (Table 1) or for their survival.

The initiation age of male offspring at first coitus did significantly differ by Parenting Actors (Table 1). Male offspring of BioParents (M= 15.98) had the oldest age initiation, male offspring of BioFather (M= 14.54) the youngest-with BioMother male offspring (M= 15.13) midway. The survival age of male offspring at first coitus did significantly differ by Parenting Actors (Figure 2). By age 17, 100% of BioFather male offspring, 75.8% of BioMother male offspring, and 62.0% of BioParents male offspring had first coitus (X2(1, N = 274) = 11.529, p = 0.003). Age of female partners at male offspring’s first coitus did significantly differ by Parenting Actors (Table 1). Male offspring of BioParents (M= 16.65) had the oldest aged female coital partners, male offspring of BioFather (M= 15.20) the youngest-with BioMother male offspring ( M= 15.77) midway. In terms of survival-there was a significant difference in the age of male offspring’s first coital partners and their Parenting Actors (Figure 3). At first coitus, 75% of BioFather male offspring, 68.7% of BioMother male offspring, and 57.0% of BioParents male offspring had coitus with a female under age 17 ( X2(2, N = 267) = 7.902, p = 0.019). There was no significant difference in male offspring’s lifetime number of coital partners by Parenting Actors (Table 1).

Figure 2: Male Offspring's Birth Parents from Ages 13-20 at First Coitus.

Figure 3: Male Offspring's Birth Parents from Ages 13-20 by Age of First Coital Partner.

Male offspring’s age initiation at first pregnancy could not be calculated due to too few BioFather male offspring reporting paternity. One consideration here is that a portion of male offspring may be unaware or never notified of their paternity [38,40].

There was no significant difference in Parenting Actors and whether their male offspring ever received female performed fellatio or ever performed cunnilingus. Significantly more BioMother male offspring (48.2%) than BioFather (33.3%) or BioParents (34.8%) male offspring ever received fellatio while performing cunnilingus (Table 2).

There was no significant difference in Parenting Actors and whether their male offspring ever had coitus. There was no significant difference in Parenting Actors and their male offspring experiencing a pregnancy-regardless of pregnancy outcome. There was no significant difference in Parenting Actors and whether their male offspring ever had coitus on a first date or coitus with someone they knew for less than 24 hours. There was no significant difference in Parenting Actors and whether their male offspring ever had coitus while using alcohol or marijuana. There was no significant difference in Parenting Actors and whether their male offspring ever had coitus with a bound female partner. There was no significant difference in Parenting Actors and whether their male offspring ever had coitus after spanking their female partner. There was no significant difference in Parenting Actors and whether their male offspring ever had coitus while the female role-played rape. There was no significant difference in Parenting Actors and whether their male offspring ever had a coital orgasm. Significantly more BioMother male offspring (14.4%) than BioFather (5.6%) or BioParents (6.4%) male offspring ever faked a coital orgasm (Table 2).

Age initiation for oral-genital behavior and first coitus of female offspring by Parenting Actors were means compared along with their survival. Once again, survival calculates ‘time to event’-in this case daughter’s age to first oral-genital or coital rite of passage. Given that BioFather female offspring were significantly older than BioMother and BioParents female offspring, ANCOVA was calculated, fixing daughter’s ‘age’ as the covariate.

There was a significant difference in Parenting Actors and their daughters’ age initiation for first male performed cunnilingus, with ‘age’ explaining 14.9% of the variance (Table 1). BioFather female offspring (M= 17.72) had the oldest age initiation, BioMother female offspring (M= 16.43) the youngest-with BioParents female offspring ( M= 17.30) midway. There was a significant survival difference between Parenting Actors and their daughters’ age at first male performed cunnilingus (Figure 4). By age 17, 54.5% of BioFather female offspring, 54.7% of BioMother female offspring, and 44.7% of BioParents female offspring had experienced male performed cunnilingus (X2(1, N = 365) = 14.401, p = .001).

Figure 4: Female Offspring's Birth Parents from Ages 13-20 at Female's first Cunnilingus by Male.

There was a significant difference in Parenting Actors by their daughters’ age initiation at first performed fellatio, with ‘age’ explaining 18.7% of the variance (Table 1). BioFather female offspring (M= 17.84) had the oldest age initiation, BioMother female offspring (M= 16.85) the youngest-with BioParents female offspring (M= 17.58) midway. There was no significant survival difference between Parenting Actors and their daughters’ age at first performed fellatio.

There was no significant difference in Parenting Actors by their daughters’ age initiation at first male performed cunnilingus while performing fellatio (Table 1). There was no significant difference between Parenting Actors and their daughters’ age at first male performed cunnilingus while performing fellatio in their survival.

There was no significant difference in Parenting Actors by their daughters’ age initiation for first coitus (Table 1). This result was not significant, but borderline (F(2) = 3.001, p = .051) with ‘age’ explaining 9.9% of the variance. Of note, BioFather female offspring (M= 17.50) had the oldest age initiation, BioMother female offspring (M= 16.18) the youngest-with BioParents female offspring (M= 16.59) midway. There was a significant survival difference between Parenting Actors and their daughters’ age at first coitus (Figure 5). By age 17, 50.0% of BioFather female offspring, 75.7% of BioMother female offspring, and 65.6% of BioParents female offspring had first coitus (X2(2, N = 419) = 6.503, p = 0.039). There was a significant difference in Parenting Actors and their daughters’ first coital partner’s age-with daughters’ ‘age’ explaining 12.0% of the variance. (Table 1). BioFather female offspring (M= 21.09) had the oldest aged first coital partner, BioMother female offspring (M= 18.46) the youngest—with BioParents female offspring (M= 19.11) midway. There was a significant survival difference among Parenting Actors by the age of their daughters’ first coital partner (Figure 6). Female offspring parented by their biological father had the oldest aged first coital partners throughout their lifetime compared to female offspring parented by their biological mothers or parents (X2(2, N = 398) = 6.973, p = 0.031). There was a significant difference in Parenting Actors by their daughters’ lifetime number of coital partners, with ‘age’ explaining 4.6% of the variance (Table 1). BioFather female offspring (M= 3.66) had the lowest number of lifetime coital partners, BioMother female offspring (M= 7.40) the highest-with BioParents female offspring (M= 5.22) midway.

Figure 5: Female Offspring's Birth Parents from Ages 13-20 at First Coitus.

Figure 6: Female Offspring's Birth Parents from Ages 13-20 by Age of First Coital Partner.

There was no significant difference in Parenting Actors by the age of their daughters at first pregnancy-regardless of pregnancy outcome (Table 1). There was no significant survival difference between Parenting Actors and their daughters’ age at first pregnancy. There was no significant difference in Parenting Actors and whether their daughters ever experienced a pregnancy-regardless of pregnancy outcome (Table 2).

There was no significant difference in Parenting Actors and whether their daughters’ ever received male performed cunnilingus or performed fellatio. There was no significant difference in Parenting Actors and whether their daughters’ ever received cunnilingus while performing fellatio (Table 2).

There was no significant difference in Parenting Actors and whether their daughters ever had coitus; ever had coitus on a first date; ever had coitus with someone they knew for less than 24-hours; ever had coitus while using alcohol or marijuana; ever had coitus while bound; ever had coitus after being spanked by their male partner; ever had coitus while role-playing rape; ever had a coital orgasm or faked a coital orgasm (Table 2).

Hypotheses Proof

There was a significant difference between Parenting Actors and male offspring survival at first female performed fellatio. In addition, significantly more male offspring reared by their birth mothers had received fellatio while performing cunnilingus compared to male offspring reared by their birth fathers or parents. The H1 hypothesis was rejected. Male offspring’s age initiation and experience for heterosexual oral-genital practices was influenced by their parent actor(s).

Male offspring reared by their birth parents were the oldest at first coitus, with male offspring reared by their birth fathers the youngest. There was a significant survival difference between Parenting Actors and male offspring’s age at first coitus. Male offspring reared by their birth parents had the oldest coital partners, with male offspring reared by their birth fathers the youngest. The H2 hypothesis was rejected. Male offspring’s age initiation and coital experience was influenced by their biological parent actor(s).

There was no significant difference in Parenting Actors and whether male offspring ever experienced paternity. The H3 hypothesis failed to be rejected.

There was no significant difference in male offspring’s lifetime number of coital partners and their Parenting Actors. There was no significant difference in Parenting Actors and whether their male offspring ever experienced paternity. There was no significant difference in Parenting Actors and whether their male offspring ever had coitus; ever had coitus on a first date or coitus with someone they knew for less than 24 hours; ever had coitus while using alcohol, marijuana, or while their female partner was bound, or after spanking their female partner, or while their female partner role-played rape. The H4 hypothesis failed to be rejected. Male offspring’s high-risk sexual behavior was not influenced by their biological parent actor(s).

There was a significant difference between Parenting Actors and their daughters’ age for first male performed cunnilingus. There was a significant difference in Parenting Actors in the age initiation of daughters’ first performed fellatio. The H5 hypothesis was rejected. Daughters parented by birth mothers or birth parents reported the youngest age initiation for heterosexual oral-genital practices compared to daughters parented by their birth fathers.

There was a significant survival difference between Parenting Actors and their non-virgin daughters’ age at first coitus. By age 17, half of daughters parented by their birth fathers, two-thirds of daughters parented by their birth parents, and three-quarters of daughters parented by their birth mothers had first coitus. There was a significant survival difference between Parenting Actors and the age of their daughters’ first coital partner. The H6 hypothesis was rejected. Daughters reared by birth mothers were 1.5 times more likely for first coitus by age 17 compared to daughters reared by birth fathers.

There was no significant survival difference in Parenting Actors in the age initiation of daughters at their first pregnancy. There was no significant difference in Parenting Actors and whether daughters ever experienced a pregnancy. The H7 hypothesis failed to be rejected.

There was no significant difference in Parenting Actors and whether their daughters ever had coitus on a first date or coitus with someone they knew for less than 24 hours; ever had coitus while using alcohol or marijuana, or bound, or after being spanked by their male partner, or role-playing rape. However, daughters parented by birth mothers reported nearly double the number of lifetime coital partners compared to daughters parented by birth fathers. The H8 hypothesis was rejected.

Strengths and Limitations

This investigation should be interpreted with limitations, as well as exclusivity in the literature. This study drew a convenience sample from a two-year college of undergraduates, limiting its generalizability. However, this sample was drawn from a non-resident college devoid of institutional management of undergraduate cohabitation arrangements by a third party (e.g., university housing, fraternity/sorority) that could influence respondents’ autonomous sexual behavior or procreation opportunity. Furthermore, this sample presented uncommon insight into the research question given that it was solicited from a pedestrian undergraduate population not constructed from a preassembled collective that was self-identified or identified by public health or non-profit agencies for: high-risk sexual behavior, sexually transmitted infection/disease, teenage pregnancy, youth or peer health (wellness) counselling/therapy, or classification as a single-mother parenting household.

Discussion

Three biological parenting models were isolated to examine their relation to offspring’s onset of sexual rites of passage, number of lifetime sexual partners, and high-risk sexual behavior.

The results revealed a discernible pattern of adolescent male sexual rites of passage when male offspring are parented by their birth father. In this investigation when the comparative single-father parenting household is accounted for in the independent variable, the results demonstrate that sons reared by their birth father report a precocious age initiation for coitus—yet with the least number of lifetime coital partners and with no greater propensity for high-risk sexual behavior … compared to sons reared by their birth mother or birth parents. Sons parented exclusively by their birth father experienced first coitus concomitantly with their libido maturation onset, yet had no greater propensity for high-risk sexual behavior compared to sons raised by their birth mother or birth parents. These results expose an incessant design flaw when the comparative single-father parenting household is omitted in vetting this research question. Omitting the comparative single-father parenting household creates an inferential ‘blind spot’. Indeed, Sheppard et al. caution that their calculations were not completely consistent for male outcomes in the single-father parenting household [12].

A consensus of contemporaneous research from the past three decades surmise that ‘father-absence’ in the single-mother parenting model mostly accounts for daughters’ precocious sexual behavior as well as daughters’ elevated high-risk sexual behavior. Contrariwise, in this study a discernible pattern of sexual rites of initiation emerges when adolescent daughters are reared by their birth mother juxtaposed to their birth father. When accounting for the birth-father parenting level in the independent variable … the finding is that daughters reared by birth fathers had the oldest age initiation for coital behaviors and least number of lifetime coital partners compared to daughters reared by birth mothers. Most telling is that daughters reared by birth parents report the intermediate age initiation and lifetime experience for the sexual behaviors that proved statistically significant. These results suggest that the precocious oral-genital and coital sexual rites of passage as well as elevated number of lifetime sexual partners reported by daughters is more likely a consequence of the birth mother-only parenting exposure rather than the father-absent parenting exclusion. It follows that the intermediate age initiation and lifetime sexual behavior experience reported by offspring daughters in this study, reflect the mediating parenting outcome when daughters are conjointly reared by their birth father and birth mother.

Instance as well as contemporaneous research that omitted the birth-father parenting level of the independent variable has posited that the sexual maturation and sexual experience of daughters reared by birth parents or single birth mothers are equivalent. These data do not support that contention. Sexual behavior rites of passage of daughters reared by birth mothers were uniformly earlier than for daughters reared by birth parents or birth father. This contradicts Biblarz and Raftery’s conclusion that a single mother family more closely resembled that of intact nuclear families—with the single father family yielding detrimental consequences for their offspring [19]. These data do not support Sear and Coall’s contention that the non-resident father has a minimal effect on the sexual maturation and behavior of offspring [25]. Given that McNeely et al. excluded non-resident father parenting households from their research design, these data do not support their contention that mothers' values, beliefs, and relationship satisfaction have more of an influence on daughters than on sons’ age initiation at first coitus [9]. These data do not support Sheppard and Sear’s contention that childhood adversity and not necessarily father absence per se—is responsible for the precocious sexual rites of passage and increased levels of sexual high-risk behavior of daughters [28]. In terms of maternity, these data do not support Gaydosh et al. findings that, there is no evidence that daughters who experience father absence in childhood … also experience accelerated reproductive development in comparison with their peers having parenting fathers [22].

Mendle et al. reported that offspring daughters had little variance in age at first coitus, regardless of their ‘father absent/present’ grouping. Notably, the Mendle et al. construct of ‘father absence’ was constructed in part, via the testimony of mothers. In addition, 31% of the father ‘always absent’ and ‘partially absent’ households had stepfathers … confounding the biological father ‘always absent’ or ‘partially absent’ levels of their independent variable. This investigation does not supportMendle et al. contention that externalizing-related passive genes transmitted to offspring daughters are mostly responsible for their accelerated age at first coitus, with father parenting absence/presence being a confounding or fortuitous, less likely influence [33].

This investigation’s findings suggest a discordant relationship between externalizing-related genes of offspring daughters and their ‘age at first coitus’ when controlling for biological father parenting (present/absent) exclusivity within the independent variable [34-37]. This observation is within the offspring demarcated developmental years of 13 through 20. Here, daughters reared by birth mothers had the youngest age initiation for all coital behaviors, including first coitus. Daughters reared by birth fathers had the oldest age initiation for all coital behaviors, including first coitus—with daughters reared by both birth parents having the intermediate age to that of their cohorts. These findings suggest that the absence or presence of a ‘biological father parenting’ household had a substantive influence on the sexual behavior maturation of both sons and daughters. This is observed when the independent variable accounts for the exclusivity of biological parenting actors during the critical sexual maturation age span of 13 through 20 [38-40].

It may be that left to her own devices, the birth mother is more accepting of her daughter’s sexual debut and sexual foray than that of the birth father. It may be that the birth mother single-parent seeks to prevent her daughter from becoming pregnant … whereas the birth father single-parent seeks to prevent his daughter from having sex. These data support the notion that birth fathers parent their daughters more conventionally than birth mothers. These data support the notion that birth mothers parent their daughters more progressively than birth fathers and just as notably birth parents.

In this investigation there was a discernible distinction in the sexual behavior life experience of daughters reared by their birth father, when compared to daughters reared by their birth mother or birth parents. Daughters’ precocious sexual behavior rites of passage as well as high-risk sexual behavior was less likely a consequence of their birth father parenting absence or passive gene-environment theory—and more likely a consequence of their single-parent, birth mother parenting life experience.

Ethics

Human Subjects Approval Statement: This study was approved by The City University of New York Institutional Research Review Board (IRB NET#: 11-12-037-0140). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

1. Kann L, McManus T, Harris W, et al. (2018) Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance-United States, 2017. Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Review-CDC Surveillance Summery 67: 1-114.
2. Kotchick B, Shaffer A, Forehand R, Miller K (2001) Adolescent Sexual Risk Behavior: A Multi System Perspective. Clinical Psychology Review 21: 493-519.
3. Belsky J, Steinberg L, Houts R, Halpern-Felsher B (2010) The Development of Reproductive Strategy in Females: Early Maternal Harshness-Earlier Menarche--Increased Sexual Risk Taking. Developmental Psychology 46: 120-128.
4. Downing J, Bellis M (2009) Early Pubertal Onset and Its Relationship with Sexual Risk Taking, substance Use And Anti-social Behaviour: A Preliminary Cross-sectional Study. BMC Public Health 9: 446.
5. Ellis B, Bates J, Dodge K, et.al. (2003) Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk For Early Sexual Activity And Teenage Pregnancy? Child Development 74: 801-821.
6. Hogan D, Kitagawa E (1985) The Impact Of Social status, Family Structure, & Neighborhood On The Fertility Of Black Adolescents. American Journal of Sociology 90: 825-855.
7. Kiernan K, Hobcraft J (1997) Parental Divorce During Childhood: Age At First Intercourse, Partnership, and Parenthood. Population Studies 51: 41-55.
8. La Guardia A, Nelson J, Lertora I (2014) The Impact Of Father Absence On Daughter Sexual Development And Behaviors: Implications For Professional Counselors. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 22: 339-346.
9. McNeely C, Shew M, Beuhring T, et al. (2002) Mothers' Influence On The Timing Of First Sex Among 14- and 15-year-olds. Journal of Adolescent Health 31: 256-265.
10. Nettle D, Coal D, Dickins T (2010) Birthweight And Paternal Involvement Predict Early Reproduction In British Women: Evidence From The National Child Development Study. American Journal of Human Biology 22: 172-179.
11. Ryan R (2015) Non-resident Fatherhood and Adolescent Sexual Behavior: A Comparison Of siblings Approach. Developmental Psychology 51: 211-223.
12. Sheppard P, Garcia J, Sear R (2014) A Not-so-grim Tale: How Childhood Family Structure Influences Reproductive and Risk-taking Outcomes in a Historical U.S. Population. PLoS One 5: e89539.
13. Wight D, Williamson L, Henderson M (2006) Parental Influences On Young People's Sexual Behaviour: A Longitudinal Analysis. Journal of Adolescence 29: 473-494.
14. Anderson J (2014) The Impact Of Family Structure On The Health Of Children: Effects Of divorce. Linacre Q 81: 378-387.
15. D'Onofrio B, Turkheimer E, Emery R, et al. (2006) A Genetically Informed Study Of The Processes Underlying The Association Between Parental Marital Instability And Offspring adjustment. Developmental Psychology 42: 486-499.
16. James J, Ellis B, Schlomer G, Garber J (2012) Sex-specific Pathways To Early Puberty, Sexual Debut, And Sexual Risk Taking: Tests Of An Integrated Evolutionary-Developmental Model. Developmental Psychology 48: 687-702.
17. Anderson K (2015) Father Absence, Childhood Stress, And Reproductive Maturation In South Africa. Human Nature 26: 401-425.
18. Quinlan R (2003) Father Absence, Paternal Care, And Female Reproductive Development. Evolution and Human Behavior 24: 376-390.
19. Biblarz T, Raftery A (1999) Family Structure, Educational Attainment, And Socioeconomic Success: Rethinking The ‘Pathology of Matriarchy’. American Journal of Sociology105: 321-365.
20. DelPriore D, Schlomerm G, Ellis B (2017) Impact Of Fathers On Parental Monitoring Of Daughters And Their Affiliation With Sexually Promiscuous Peers: A Genetically And Environmentally Controlled Sibling Study. Developmental Psychology 53: 1330-1343.
21. Belsky J, Houts R, DeHart G, Steinberg S, et al. (2007) Family Rearing Antecedents Of Pubertal Timing. Child Development 78: 1302-1321.
22. Gaydosh L, Belsky D, Domingue B, Boardman J, Mullan Harris K (2018) Father Absence And Accelerated Reproductive Development In Non-Hispanic White Women In The United States. Demography 55:1245-1267.
23. Hehman J, Salmon C (2019) Sex-specific Developmental Effects of Father Absence on Casual Sexual Behavior and Life History Strategy. Evolutionary Psychological Science 5: 121-130.
24. Markowitz A, Ryan R (2016) Father Absence And Adolescent Depression And Delinquency: A Comparison Of Siblings Approach. Journal of Marital Family Therapy 78: 1300-1314.
25. Sear R, Coall D (2011) How Much Does Family Matter? Cooperative Breeding And The Demographic Transition. Population and Development Review 37: 81-112.
26. Upchurch D, Aneshensel C, Sucoff C, Levy-Storms L (1999) Neighborhood And Family Contexts Of Adolescent Sexual Activi Journal of Marriage and Family 61: 920-933.
27. Davis E, Friel L (2001) Adolescent Sexuality: Disentangling The Effects Of Family Structure And Family Context. Journal of Marriage and Family 63: 669-681.
28. Sheppard P, Sear R (2012) Father Absence Predicts Age At Sexual Maturity And Reproductive Timing In British Men. Biology Letters 8: 237-240.
29. Boothroyd L, Craig P, Crossman R, Perrett D (2013) Father absence and age at first birth in a western sample. American Journal of Human Biology 25: 366-369.
30. Ellis BJ (2004) Timing of pubertal maturation in girls: an integrated life history approach. Psychol Bull 130: 920-958.
31. Hunjan A, Cheesman R, Coleman J, et al. (2021) No Evidence For Passive Gene-environment Correlation Or The Influence Of Genetic Risk For Psychiatric Disorders On Adult Body Composition Via The Adoption Design. Behavioral Genetics 51: 58-67.
32. Kong A, Thorleifsson K, Frigge M, et al. (2018) The Nature Of Nurture: Effects Of Parental Genotypes. Science 359: 424-428.
33. Mendle J, Harden P, Turkheimer E, et al. (2009) Associations Between Father Absence And Age Of First sexual Intercourse. Child Development 80: 1463-1480.
34. Belcastro P (1983) A Comparison of Latent Sexual Behavior Patterns Between Raped and Never Raped Female Victims. Victomology: An International Journal 7: 224-230.
35. Belcastro P (1985) Sexual Behavior Differences Between Black and White Students. Journal of Sex Research 21: 56-67.
36. Belcastro P (2020) Reconciling Female Homoerotism in Sexual Orientation Paradigms. Reports on Global Health Research 3: 1-13.
37. Belcastro P, Ramsaroop H (2018) Examining the Sexual Enigma of the Immigrant Paradox with International Students. Journal of International Students 8: 1783-1814.
38. Belcastro PA (2021) An Examination of Sexual Practice Experience of Female Sexual Assault Victims. Rep Glob Health Res 4: 133.
39. Belcastro PA (2021) Divergence in the Fecundation Intent and Pregnancy Outcome Experience of Undergraduate Men. Rep Glob Health Res 4: 134.
40. Nis B, Andreas E, Lea L, et al. (2019) Timing of Puberty in Boys and Girls: A Population-based Study. Pediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 33:70-78.
41. Lindberg L, Kost K (2014) Exploring U.S. Men's Birth Intentions. Maternal and Child Health Journal 18: 625-633.