Sexual experiences, attitudes, enjoyment and regret in the parent and offspring generations of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Childhood (ALSPAC): 2022 data sweep.

Sexual experiences, attitudes, enjoyment and regret in the parent and offspring generations of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Childhood (ALSPAC): 2022 data sweep - PMC Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Search Log in Dashboard Publications Account settings Log out Search… Search NCBI Primary site navigation Search Logged in as: Dashboard Publications Account settings Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide PERMALINK Copy As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice Wellcome Open Res . 2026 Apr 14;9:674. Originally published 2024 Nov 12. [Version 2] doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.23059.2 Other versions PMC13090757.1; 2024 Nov 12 PMC13090757.2; 2026 Apr 14 Search in PMC Search in PubMed View in NLM Catalog Add to search Sexual experiences, attitudes, enjoyment and regret in the parent and offspring generations of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Childhood (ALSPAC): 2022 data sweep. Yasmin Iles-Caven Yasmin Iles-Caven 1 Population Health Sciences, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Rd, University of Bristol Medical School, Bristol, England, BS8 2PS, UK Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Find articles by Yasmin Iles-Caven 1, a , Jean Golding Jean Golding 1 Population Health Sciences, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Rd, University of Bristol Medical School, Bristol, England, BS8 2PS, UK Funding Acquisition, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Find articles by Jean Golding 1 , Carol Joinson Carol Joinson 1 Population Health Sciences, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Rd, University of Bristol Medical School, Bristol, England, BS8 2PS, UK Funding Acquisition, Writing – Review & Editing Find articles by Carol Joinson 1 , Abigail Fraser Abigail Fraser 2 Population Health Sciences, Oakfield House, Oakfield Grove, University of Bristol Medical School, Bristol, England, BS8 2BN, UK Funding Acquisition, Writing – Review & Editing Find articles by Abigail Fraser 2 , Kate Northstone Kate Northstone 2 Population Health Sciences, Oakfield House, Oakfield Grove, University of Bristol Medical School, Bristol, England, BS8 2BN, UK Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, Writing – Review & Editing Find articles by Kate Northstone 2 Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 Population Health Sciences, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Rd, University of Bristol Medical School, Bristol, England, BS8 2PS, UK 2 Population Health Sciences, Oakfield House, Oakfield Grove, University of Bristol Medical School, Bristol, England, BS8 2BN, UK a Email: [email protected] No competing interests were disclosed. Roles Yasmin Iles-Caven : Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Jean Golding : Funding Acquisition, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Carol Joinson : Funding Acquisition, Writing – Review & Editing Abigail Fraser : Funding Acquisition, Writing – Review & Editing Kate Northstone : Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, Writing – Review & Editing Accepted 2026 Mar 27; Collection date 2024. Copyright: © 2026 Iles-Caven Y et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13090757  PMID: 42007229 Version Changes Revised. Amendments from Version 1 Throughout: ‘risky sexual behaviours’ replaced by ‘sexual behaviours’ or ‘risky behaviours’ depending on context. Background:  Para1 Clarification of early sexual debut, and sex differences in the extant literature. Para2 Minor clarifications;  additional sentence on ability to examine the data inter- and cross-generations. Three additional paragraphs.  New Para3 gives age range of the G0s.  Para4 and Para5 gives 20 th century history of school-led sex education for context. Methods Data collection 2022:  Definitions of sexual intercourse used added as sentence in Section F preamble. Observations: Tables 2a and 2b descriptive text expanded. Table 2a: Parent demographics clarified. Percentages altered to those who responded to the questions. Three footnotes added to clarify British educational attainment, social class and urban/rural. Table 2b: Explanatory note added to title to clarify why totals may not match between the questionnaires reported. Penultimate section title has been clarified. Footnote added on British educational attainment levels. Table 3.  Typo in row 1 corrected. Tables 6a-6e:  all have column/row names altered to clarify thus avoiding referral to the key.  Paragraph relating to these tables clarified. Table 7 title:  altered Text preceding Table 9b:   Additional paragraph outlining the limitations of the regret data. Table 9b: Minor alteration to the 3 rd row from bottom label Table 10 and associated text.  New data on gender, relating to data released from Winter 2022 questionnaire that was unavailable when writing the initial paper. Discussion.  On advice (Reviewer 1) additional two paragraphs before S&L section; new paragraph (3rd) in the Strengths and Limitations, giving two additional variables on sex education. Final sentence of Para4 replaced. References.  Nine additional references. Updates on publication status of other data notes. Abstract The aim of this data note is to describe data collected in 2022 on sexual history, attitudes, enjoyment and regret. Data were collected from mothers (age range 47–75 years (mean 60.0), n = 4653) their partners (age range 47-83 years (mean 62.9), n= 1945) and offspring (aged ~30 years, females n= 2702, males n=1366) in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents & Children (ALSPAC). Many of the questions asked are identical, or similar, to those collected in the British NATSAL (National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes & Lifestyles). Repeating the same questions in both ALSPAC generations allows for direct inter-generational comparisons within ALSPAC as well as across studies. Areas covered include age at sexual debut; having drunk alcohol, used drugs or contraception at sexual debut; the circumstances under which participants met their first sexual partner; sexual orientation; the Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale; regret at first sexual experience, lifetime experiences of sexual regret and the degree of regret, as well as the reason(s) for that regret; number of sexual partners both in the last two years and over their lifetime; current frequency and enjoyment of sex. ALSPAC provides a rich resource of data collected on a wide variety of topics including details of the participants’ environment, lifestyle, physical and mental health over the life span, including sexual experiences collected retrospectively from the parents, and from the age of 11 in the offspring. There are thus many opportunities for research on a wide variety of topics related to potentially risky and normal sexual behaviours, sexual health, functioning and well-being. Keywords: ALSPAC, sexual debut, sexual attitudes, sexual history, sexual enjoyment, sexual regret, sexual experiences Background Early adolescent sexual activity is often considered to be a risky behaviour because it may result in sexually transmitted infections (STIs) or teen pregnancy. In the UK, early sexual debut is usually considered as occurring under the age of 16 (the legal age of consent). Despite positive outcomes such as romantic self-esteem and sexual satisfaction for males only (e.g. Golden et al., 2016 ). There is evidence that early sexual debut can have detrimental effects in both sexes on the development of self-concept, self-esteem, feelings of regret, and on mental health, relationship skills and potentially sexual functioning in later life. Findings are more robust and consistent for girls (e.g. Kahn & Halpern, 2018 ; Mårdh et al. , 2000 ; Meier, 2007 ; Sandfort et al. , 2008 ). Early sexual debut is associated with early onset of puberty, previous sexual abuse, affiliation with older peers, low self-esteem and with later risky behaviours such as higher numbers of sexual partners over the life course, internalising problems in girls, substance use and antisocial behaviour (e.g. Kastbom et al. , 2015 ). Research has mostly focussed on adolescents and young adults (the latter often of college students), but there is increasing interest in the past and current sexual attitudes, behaviours and activities of middle aged and older people (e.g. Hinchliff et al. , 2021 ). The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents & Children (ALSPAC) has collected data on sexual experiences and behaviours longitudinally in both the parent and offspring cohorts over the last 30-years. These data have been described in detail for the mothers and their partners (G0 generation) ( Iles-Caven & Golding, 2024a ) and for the offspring (G1 generation) from the age of 11 ( Iles-Caven & Golding, 2024b ). This data note describes the identical data subsequently collected from both generations in 2022, focussing on questions concerning sexual attitudes, behaviours, enjoyment and regret. It explores the differences in reporting between the two generations and between the sexes (for the offspring that is sex assigned at birth). Parent-child data can be linked facilitating both inter- and cross-generational comparisons. Whilst the offspring were all born within the period 1991-1992, the parent generation have a wide age range with the mothers aged <16–41 years at delivery and born from 1950 onwards, whilst their partners were aged <16–65 years at delivery (born 1926 onwards). It is therefore important to bear in mind the content and provision of sex education over time. School-led sex education has been found to be effective in delaying sexual debut and encouraging use of contraception (for example), however, it has only been 5 years since good quality, comprehensive and inclusive sex/relationships education has been made compulsory in all British schools, but this still varies across schools. School-delivered sex education has been on the agenda for many decades, although mainly aimed at girls initially around menstruation, personal hygiene, and pregnancy avoidance. In 2020, Simpson stated “The motivation to respond to ‘changing times’ by intervening within sex education is often stimulated by broader social and moral panics, related to perceived changing attitudes towards sexuality as a threat to society”. Such a threat was WW2, prompting a report commissioned by the Board of Education and a subsequent pamphlet published in 1943 which empowered teachers to deliver sex education as the report had found that many parents were too embarrassed or ill-equipped to do so (Board of Education, 1943). In 1947 the minimum school leaving age was raised from 14 to 15 years, thus prompting the imperative for school-based sex education. However, throughout the 1950s and 1960s provision was inconsistent as the decision whether or not to initiate sex education was up to the individual school head. Progress was gradually made in coverage and content of sex education, but within the context of ‘moral considerations’. In addition, there was tension between government and moral conservatives especially evident during the 1980s and 1990s, with concerns over encouraging promiscuity and acceptance of homosexuality. Pilcher (2005) gives a detailed account of sex education in Britain 1870-2000. The UK government’s 1992 Health of the Nation strategy included the reduction of teenage pregnancies and STIs (particularly in the wake of the HIV/AIDS ‘epidemic’ of the mid-1980s). The Sex Education Forum (1992) reported that not all schools offered sex education. The 1993 Education Act stated that only the biological aspects of STIs and human sexual behaviour should be included in the National Curriculum at secondary school level (ages 11-16 and then included primary schools from 1996). From 1999, Sex & Relationships Education (SRE) was included within the framework of the Personal, Social & Health Education (PSHE) curriculum. However, only from 1 st September 2020 was RSE (Relationships & Sex Education), Relationships Education (including LGBT+ inclusivity) and Health Education made statutory in all state-run schools in England, with no parental opt out (Sex Education Forum, 2026). Thus, the ALSPAC cohort are unlikely to have received such education as they had all left school by this time. However, questionnaires administered to schools attended by ALSPAC G1s in Years 3 and 6 asked whether sex education was given (see Strengths & Limitations). Methods Participants The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC). All pregnant women (G0 cohort) resident in the Avon area of south-west England with expected dates of delivery between April 1991 and December 1992 inclusive were invited to enrol in ALSPAC. The initial number of pregnancies enrolled was 14,541, resulting in 13,988 infants who were alive at 12 months of age. Additional phases of enrolment from the age of 7 years are described in more detail in the cohort profile papers ( Boyd et al. , 2013 ; Fraser et al. , 2013 ; Northstone et al. , 2019 ; Northstone et al. , 2025 ). The total sample size for analyses using any data collected after the age of seven is 15,447 pregnancies, resulting in 15,658 fetuses. Of these, 14,901 children (G1 cohort) were alive at 1 year of age. Some women enrolled with more than one pregnancy, consequently the number of unique mothers who were enrolled was 14,833 in total. G0 partners were invited to complete questionnaires by the mothers at the start of the study but they were not formally enrolled at that time. Note that ‘partners’ were usually the biological father (at least around initial enrolment), but subsequently may be a stepfather, father-figure, or same-sex partner (confirmed change of partner has been noted in only 4.4%). 12,113 G0 partners have been in contact with the study by providing data and/or formally enrolling when this commenced in 2010. 3,807 G0 partners are currently enrolled (recruited via the mother or the study child) ( Northstone et al. , 2023 ) and may not necessarily still be with the study mother. Since 2014, study data are collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted at the University of Bristol. REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) is a secure, web-based software platform designed to support data capture for research studies ( Harris et al. , 2009 ). For those participants who prefer to complete paper versions these are also offered. Please note that the study website contains details of all the data that is available through a fully searchable data dictionary and variable search tool: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/researchers/our-data/ . Data collection in 2022 A questionnaire was administered to the G0 parents between June 2022 and March 2023. Response rate for the mothers was 50% of those invited (n=4653) and for the partners 51% of those invited (n=1945). The G0 questionnaire had eight sections: Section A membership of different clubs and organisations over their lifetime; Section B physical exercise pre- and post-pandemic; Section C social support networks and details of the help they may have received from the people around them; Section D attitudes and beliefs: optimism/pessimism (LOT-R scale; Scheier et al. , 1994 ), altruism (Ruston scale; Rushton et al ., 1981 ), gratitude ( McCullough et al. , 2002 ), forgiveness ( Berry et al. , 2005 ), self-efficacy ( Romppel et al. , 2013 ), and meaning in life ( Steger et al. , 2006 ); Section E internal home environment including cooking methods, types of heating, ventilation, the presence of mould/damp, pests and pets; Section F sexual attitudes and experiences; Section G smoking, cannabis and other drugs and alcohol intake (as a teenager, in their early 20s, pre- and post-pandemic) and Section H reproductive history. The initial invitation email to complete the Summer 2022 G1 offspring questionnaire was sent in late May 2022. This questionnaire differed from the parent version in that it had 13 sections. In addition to the content included in the parental questionnaires, there were sections on body image and separate sections with more detailed questioning on smoking, e-cigarette use, cannabis, CBD (Cannabidiol) products, other drugs and alcohol. It omitted the section on reproductive history. The response rate was 4068 (45% of those invited). Identical sets of questions relating to sexual behaviours and experiences were asked of both G0 and G1 generations within these questionnaires (Section F). Section F was entitled “Sexual Attitudes and Experiences”, with the preamble: “ The questions in this section are about your attitudes to sex and sexual experiences. We know that this can be quite a sensitive topic and therefore want to reassure you that all your answers are completely confidential. Where we refer to sexual intercourse or 'having sex' please include vaginal, oral or anal sexual intercourse ”. The definition of sexual intercourse (vaginal, oral or anal) used in these questionnaires have been used previously in ALSPAC and mirror that used in NATSAL. The wording of the questions and their variable names are listed in Table 1 . Here we describe the questions included and the potential responses in the order in which they were presented within the questionnaire. Table 1. The questions (Section F: Sexual attitudes and experiences) administered via self-completion questionnaires to the Parent (G0) and Offspring (G1) ALSPAC cohorts at the 2022 sweep with their variable names. Those prefixed DV = derived variable. DV = derived variable G0 Mothers G0 Partners G1 Life at 30+ F1. Which of the following best describes your sexual orientation? Gay/Lesbian, Bisexual, Pansexual, Asexual, Heterosexual/Straight, None of these (please describe), Don’t know, Prefer not to answer MA7010 FPE7010 YPK5510 F1a. On a scale of 0–10, please indicate your attraction to men and women with 0 being ‘only men’, 10 being ‘only women’, and 5 being equally attracted to both. If you can’t or don’t wish to answer this question, please cross one of the other options below: Gender/sex is not important to me; Don’t know; Prefer not to answer. MA7020 FPE7010 YPK5520 F2. Listed below are several statements that reflect different attitudes about sex. For each statement, please say how much you agree or disagree with that statement. Strongly agree; Moderately agree; Neither agree nor disagree; Moderately disagree; Strongly agree. F2a: Casual sex (e.g. a one-night stand) is acceptable MA7030 FPE7030 YPK5530 F2b: It is okay to have ongoing sexual relationships with more than one person at a time. MA7040 FPE7040 YPK5540 DV: sexual attitudes scale- permissiveness score MA7041 FPE7041 YPK5541 DV: sexual attitudes scale- permissiveness categories MA7042 FPE7042 YPK5542 DV: sexual attitudes scale- permissiveness, number of missing items MA7043 FPE7043 YPK5543 F2c: Sex is the closest form of communication between two people MA7050 FPE7050 YPK5550 F2d: Sex is a very important part of life MA7060 FPE7060 YPK5560 DV: sexual attitudes scale- communion score MA7061 FPE7061 YPK5561 DV: sexual attitudes scale- communion categories MA7062 FPE7062 YPK5562 DV: sexual attitudes scale- communion, number of missing items MA7063 FPE7063 YPK5563 F2e: The main purpose of sex is to enjoy oneself MA7070 FPE7070 YPK5570 F2f: Sex is primarily a bodily function, like eating MA7080 FPE7080 YPK5580 DV: sexual attitudes scale- instrumentality score MA7081 FPE7081 YPK5581 DV: sexual attitudes scale- instrumentality categories MA7082 FPE7082 YPK5582 DV: sexual attitudes scale- instrumentality, number of missing items MA7083 FPE7083 YPK5583 F2g: Sex should be reserved for marriage MA7090 FPE7090 YPK5590 F2h: A central purpose of sex is to have children MA7100 FPE7100 YPK5600 F3: How old were you when you first had sex? If you can’t remember exactly, please give your best guess. Or tick: Prefer not to answer; I have not had sex MA7110 FPE7110 YPK5610 F4: How did you meet the person with whom you first had sex? At school, college or university; At work (or through work); In a pub, bar, nightclub, or dance; Introduced by friends or family; At a faith group; Through a sports club or other organisation or society; On holiday or while travelling; Internet dating website/app; Had always known each other (e.g. as family friends or neighbours); In a public place (e.g. park, café, shop, public transport); They were a sex worker (prostitute/rent boy/male or female escort); Other please describe. MA7120 FPE7120 YPK5620 F5: The very first time you had sex: (Options: Yes, No, Don’t remember) F5a: Had you been drinking alcohol before it happened? MA7130 FPE7130 YPK5630 F5b: Had you been using drugs before it happened? MA7140 FPE7140 YPK5640 F5c: Was a condom used on this occasion? MA7150 FPE7150 YPK5650 F5d: Was any other type of contraception/protection used? MA7160 FPE7160 YPK5660 F5e: Did you regret having had this first sexual experience? MA7170 FPE7170 YPK5670 F5e1: If yes, how much did you regret it? A bit; Quite a lot; Very much MA7180 FPE7180 YPK5680 F6: Looking back at all your sexual experiences, is there anything you regret? No, no regrets; Regret some of it; Regret most of it; Regret all of it MA7190 FPE7190 YPK5690 F6a: Below are some reasons why you might have regrets: Please select all that apply. F6a_1: Resulted in an unplanned pregnancy MA7200 FPE7200 YPK5700 F6a_2: Resulted in a sexually transmitted infection MA7210 FPE7210 YPK5710 F6a_3: Relationship was violent MA7220 FPE7220 YPK5720 F6a_4: I felt I was being used MA7230 FPE7230 YPK5730 F6a_5: I was using someone against their will MA7240 FPE7240 YPK5740 F6a_6: Never found the right person MA7250 FPE7250 YPK5750 F6a_7: It was against my religious faith MA7260 FPE7260 YPK5760 F6a_8: It was too soon/we should have waited MA7270 FPE7270 YPK5770 F6a_9: Had a termination/abortion MA7280 FPE7280 YPK5780 F6a_10: I regret that I didn't have more sex MA7290 FPE7290 YPK5790 F6a_99: Other, please describe MA7300 FPE7300 YPK5800 F7: The next questions are about the number of people you have had sex within your life and in the past 2 years. When answering these questions please include everyone you have had sex with, whether it was just once, a few times, or a regular partner. Options: 0; 1; 2–3; 4–9; 10+ F7a: Number of people within the last 24 months MA7310 FPE7310 YPK5810 F7b: Number of people ever MA7320 FPE7320 YPK5820 F8: How often are you having sex nowadays? Options: Not at all; Less than once a month; 1–3 times a month; About once a week; 2–4 times a week; 5 or more times a week. MA7330 FPE7330 YPK5830 F9: In general, do/did you enjoy sex? Options: Yes, very much; Yes, somewhat/sometimes; No, not a lot; No, not at all. MA7340 FPE7340 YPK5840 Open in a new tab a. Participants were asked about their sexual orientation and their level of attraction to men and women on a scale of 0 to 10. The latter is similar to a question asked in NATSAL-3, which had a scale of six attraction options. b. We chose two items from each of three subscales from the Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale (BSAS) ( Hendrick et al. , 2006 ). The original scale comprised 23 items measuring four relatively independent sexual attitudes (we omitted birth control as this was covered elsewhere): “ Listed below are several statements that reflect different attitudes about sex. For each statement, please say how much you agree or disagree with that statement ” on a 5-point Likert scale (5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree). These statements are used to describe three attributes or dimensions: Permissiveness: Casual sex (e.g. a one-night stand) is acceptable . It is okay to have ongoing sexual relationships with more than one person at a time . Communion (idealised sexuality): Sex is the closest form of communication between two people . Sex is a very important part of life . Instrumentality (attitude of enjoyment of physical sex): The main purpose of sex is to enjoy oneself . Sex is primarily a bodily function, like eating . The BSAS does not give an overall score but rather scores for each attitude. Variables for each attitude were derived, giving a measure of each on a scale of 1–10, with lower scores equating to higher levels of that attitude. For example, the derived variable MA7042 is the dichotomised Permissiveness score (MA7041). A cut-point of 5 or less indicating high, and scores of 6–10 low permissiveness. MA7041 is the sum of variables MA7030 and MA7040, with data coded as missing if any responses are missing. The same methodology was used for the Communion and Instrumentality sub-scales, with scores 6+ equalling low levels of those attitudes ( Hendrick & Hendrick, 1987 ; Hendrick et al. , 2006 ). c. Two further statements in this section were aimed at eliciting opinions that could be heavily influenced by religious belief: “ Sex should be reserved for marriage ” and “ A central purpose of sex is to have children ”. d. The next question asked the age at sexual debut (see Table 1 for exact wording) and then where they met their first sexual partner (adapted from NATSAL-3, as was the question on the total number of sexual partners within the last 2 years, and ever. Homepage| Natsal). e. Questions on whether respondents had been drinking alcohol, using drugs, condoms and other contraception methods at their sexual debut were included. These questions were also asked in detail of the G1 cohort online at the Teen Focus clinics and in the questionnaires administered to them at ages 21 and 23 years (see Iles-Caven & Golding, 2024b ). f. Respondents were also asked if they regretted their sexual debut and the degree of regret; this was followed by a question on whether, looking back at all their sexual experiences, there was anything they regretted and reasons for that regret. They were encouraged to select all that applied (see Table 1 for options) and to describe any other reasons. These regret questions were developed from Kennair et al.’ (2018) work on sex differences in regret of casual sex. This paper found that women were more likely to regret (casual) sex due to disgust, worry (damage to reputation, STIs or pregnancy), feeling pressured and (sexual) competence of their partner. Men were more likely to regret passing up opportunities for casual sex. We also included an option relating to longer term relationships (i.e. the relationship was violent). The ‘Other reason’ for regret was ticked by 18.3% mothers, 21.3% of partners, 24% of G1 females and 29.7% of G1 males, however, a free text response was not always provided. Responses ranged from a single word or term to a paragraph. Therefore, a number of responses fell into multiple categories and consequently some individuals may appear in up to four categories. Some of these categories have been collapsed to protect participants’ identity if numbers were small. The coding of these text responses is available on request. g. Further questions asked about the number of sexual partners within the last 2 years and over the lifetime to date. The final two questions were devised by the authors as a positive ending to this section and asked how often the respondents were having sex nowadays and whether they generally enjoy/enjoyed sex. Observations The frequencies in the tables are presented for the G0 mothers, their partners, and for G1 males and females (i.e. sex assigned at birth). It should be noted that the partners may or may not be the biological father, could change over time (< 5%) and could be of either sex (although <1% were female). Where cell counts are between 0–4, these are denoted as <5 in order to preserve confidentiality of the respondents. Here we use G0 mother, G0 partner and G1 males/females to differentiate the generations and sexes in the text. Table 2a (G0) and Table 2b (G1) provide basic demographic details of the ALSPAC participants who responded to the 2022 questionnaires. We have included parity here as we felt noting siblings (older/younger - from which can be ascertained whether the respondent was the eldest), was important as these variables may influence age at sexual debut, sources of information about sex and exposure to siblings’ romantic liaisons – as well as potential confounders such as coming from a large family which may limit parental supervision. Table 2a. Basic demographics for the G0 (Parent) cohort who completed the 2022 questionnaire. Demographic factor (variable name) Mothers N % Partners N % Number of older brothers c450/pf2080 None 2581 59.8 462 47.0 1+ 1735 40.2 522 53.0 Number of older sisters c451/pf2081 None 2645 61.3 459 47.0 1+ 1671 38.7 518 53.0 Number of younger brothers c453/pf2082 None 2783 64.5 444 42.9 1+ 1533 35.5 590 57.1 Number of younger sisters c454/pf2083 None 2737 63.4 472 46.7 1+ 1579 36.6 539 53.3 Was a twin c456/pf2084 75 1.7 27 1.9 Age at delivery of G1 mz028b; partner_age <25 525 12.0 61 3.2 25–34 3270 74.5 1313 67.8 35+ 594 13.5 562 29.0 Ethnicity c800, c801 White 4213 98.1 1812 98.4 Other than white 84 1.9 29 1.6 Highest Education c645a, c666a * ≤O level 2141 49.7 617 33.6 ≥O level 2169 50.3 1218 66.4 Marital status at enrolment a525, pa065 Married 3695 84.2 1491 91.0 Not currently married 694 15.8 148 9.0 Social class c755, c765 ** Non-manual (I-IIINM) 3345 87.7 1344 76.1 Manual (IIIM-V) 468 12.3 421 23.9 Housing tenure a006 Owner occupied 3737 86.0 Rented/all other 608 14.0 Urban/Rural Jan1993ur01ind_M ** * Urban 3573 87.2 Rural 524 12.8 Index of Multiple Deprivation Jan1993imd2010q5_M *** 1 least deprived 1342 32.9 2 1053 25.8 3 713 17.5 4 604 14.8 5 most deprived 373 9.1 Open in a new tab * Public exams, usually in 5–10 subjects, normally undertaken at the end of Year 11 (age 16). Formerly called ‘O’ (Ordinary) Levels, the current equivalent are GCSEs. ** Social class was coded using the OPCS jobs scale (I Higher professional/Managerial, II Lower professional/managerial, III Non-manual - skilled; III – Manual – skilled; IV Manual – partially skilled, V Manual – unskilled) and dichotomized here into non-manual and manual. *** Urban/rural and IMD are based on postcode of the mother’s residence. Table 2b. Basic demographics of those G1 (Young People) who completed the 2022 questionnaire. Note that figures will not necessarily match as not all individuals answered both questions and those completing the YPJ questionnaire (at 29 years) may not have gone on to complete the YPK questionnaire (at 30). These reported frequencies are of those answering the 2022 questionnaires for whom we have data at 29 years. Demographic factor (variable name) N % Sex assigned at birth (kz021) Female 2702 66.4 Male 1366 33.6 First born YP was the eldest child (kd431) 1652 47.1 YP was a member of twin birth (kb610) 86 2.4 Self-reported ethnicity of YP (DV YPH2012) White 3280 95.8 Other than white 142 4.2 Highest Education level of YP (at age 26+) (YPF7970) * GCSE or equivalent 306 11.3 A level & higher NVQs 1074 39.5 Degree or higher 1337 49.2 YP’s current relationship status (at age 29+) (YPJ2500) Married 822 23.5 In civil partnership 75 2.1 Engaged 486 13.9 Other partner type (excl. any of above) 1343 38.3 No partner 777 22.2 If YP has a partner, lives with partner (at age 29+) (YPJ2510) Yes, all the time 2305 84.6 Yes, some of the time 159 5.8 No 261 9.6 YP is currently a parent (age 29+) (YPJ6000) Yes 914 26.3 No 2557 73.7 Open in a new tab * GCSEs are national public exams, usually in 5–10 subjects, normally undertaken at the end of Year 11 (age 16), and formerly called ‘O’ (Ordinary) Levels. ‘A’ (Advanced levels) are usually taken at 18 years and high grades in A levels are required for university entrance. It can be seen from Tables 2a and 2b that those continuing to participate in ALSPAC are more likely to be White, G0 married at enrolment, and of higher SES (as emphasised in Strengths & Limitations). More G1 females continue to participate than G1 males. Sexual orientation. Sexual orientation frequencies are given in Table 3 . In G1, just over 80% of each sex described themselves as heterosexual compared with ~95% of the G0 cohort; almost 7% of G1 males described themselves as “homosexual” but only 1.5% of G1 females and <0.5% of the G0 mothers did so. The proportion describing themselves as “bisexual”, “pansexual” or “asexual” were higher in G1 females than G1 males and were much higher than that seen in the parent cohorts. Table 3. Sexual orientation as reported in 2022 (N.B. Partners could be of either sex). Sexual orientation Mothers N (%) Partners N (%) YP Females N (%) YP Males N (%) Variable name MA7010 FPE7010 YPK5510 Gay/Lesbian 17 (0.4) <5 41(1.5) 94 (6.9) Bisexual/Pansexual/Asexual 55 (1.2) 32 (1.6) 292 (10.8) 100 (7.3) Heterosexual/Straight 4394 (94.4) 1850 (95.1) 2204 (81.6) 1121 (82.1) None of these/Prefer not to answer/Don’t know 78 (1.7) 20 (1.0) 73 (2.7) 23 (1.7) Total * 4653 1945 2702 1366 Open in a new tab * Totals are of returned questionnaires. Respondents may not have answered all sections or questions within the questionnaire. Some categories collapsed to protect participant identity: Gay/Lesbian; Bisexual + Pansexual + Asexual; None of these + Prefer not to answer + Don’t know. Table 4 shows participants’ self-reported degree of attraction to each sex on a 10-point scale. Just over 47% of G1 females reported being attracted only to men compared with 60% of G1 males to only women. Of the G1 females, 2.1% reported to be equally attracted to both sexes compared with 0.7% of G1 males but 1.7% of G1 males and 3% of G1 females claimed that gender was not important to them. Interestingly, 1.2% of mothers and 1.1% of female G1s reported being attracted to only women; in comparison 1.8% of G0 partners vs. 5.1% of G1 males reported being attracted only to men. Table 4. Degree of attraction to men and women (N.B. Partners could be of either sex). Cell counts <5 may equal zero. Degree of attraction Mothers N (%) Partners N (%) # YP Females N (%) YP Males N (%) ## Variable name MA7020 FPE7020 YPK5520 0 Only men 3697 (79.4) 36 (1.8) 1279 (47.3) 70 (5.1) 1 206 (4.4) 6 (0.3) 382 (14.1) 29 (2.1) 2 146 (3.1) 349 (12.9) 6 (0.4) 3 69 (1.5) 228 (8.4) 4 37 (0.8) 82 (3.0) 11 (0.9) 5 Equally to men and women 39 (0.8) 14 (0.7) 58 (2.1) 9 (0.7) 6 5 (0.1) 15 (0.6) 8 (0.6) 7 6 (0.1) 13 (0.7) 20 (0.7) 32 (2.3) 8 6 (0.1) 35 (1.8) 22 (0.8) 94 (6.9) 9 11 (0.2) 77 (4.0) 13 (0.5) 194 (14.2) 10 Only women 57 (1.2) 1651 (84.9) 30 (1.1) 827 (60.5) Gender/sex is unimportant to me 38 (0.8) 7 (0.4) 80 (3.0) 23 (1.7) Prefer not to answer 83 (1.8) 14 (0.7) 11 (0.4) 12 (0.9) Don’t know 40 (0.9) 10 (0.5) 27 (0.1) 5 (0.4) Total * 4653 1945 2702 1366 Open in a new tab # For partners’ categories 1-4 and 6+7 collapsed to protect participant identity. ## For YP males’ categories 3+4 collapsed to protect participant identity. * Totals are of returned questionnaires. Respondents may not have answered all sections or questions within the questionnaire. Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale (BSAS). Table 5a gives individual frequencies for each of the two questions from the Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale (BSAS) sub-scales relating to Permissiveness (reflects attitudes toward sexual permissiveness and openness), Communion (emotional intimacy and connection, idealised sexuality) and Instrumentality (pleasure, satisfaction). The scores for high permissiveness were over 45% for G1 females and over 58% for G1 males (mean for G1 males/females combined was 5.45), compared with ~11% of mothers and 18.7% of partners. For high communion almost identical frequencies were noted for the women in both generations (mothers 50.5%, G1 females 50.4%), with higher rates in the males (partners 67.8% and G1 males 60.2%). High instrumentality was found in ~50% of G1 compared with lower levels in the G0 generation (38.7% for mothers and 42.8% for their partners). Table 5a. Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale: Degree to which respondent thinks certain behaviours are acceptable. Percentages are based on total response rate to the questionnaire, not the individual question and hence percentages will not = 100%. Mothers N (%) Partners N (%) YP Females N (%) YP Males N (%) Permissiveness Casual sex is acceptable MA7030 FPE7030 YPK5530 Strongly disagree 1432 (30.8) 545 (28.0) 902 (33.4) 605 (44.3) Moderately disagree 787 (16.9) 283 (14.6) 742 (27.5) 373 (27.3) Neither disagree nor agree 1379 (29.6) 472 (24.3) 542 (20.1) 189 (13.8) Moderately agree 673 (14.5) 441 (22.7) 187 (6.9) 81 (5.9) Strongly agree 225 (4.8) 158 (8.1) 235 (8.7) 78 (5.7) 1+ concurrent sexual partners is acceptable MA7040 FPE7040 YPK5540 Strongly disagree 2710 (58.2) 1026 (52.7) 307 (11.4) 232 (17.0) Moderately disagree 833 (17.9) 315 (16.2) 468 (17.3) 281 (20.6) Neither disagree nor agree 688 (14.8) 341 (17.5) 517 (19.1) 283 (20.7) Moderately agree 179 (3.8) 154 (7.9) 533 (19.7) 263 (19.2) Strongly agree 81 (1.7) 60 (3.1) 781 (28.9) 267 (19.5) Permissiveness score MA7042 FPE7042 YPK5542 High permissiveness (0-5) 494 (10.6) 363 (18.7) 1218 (45.1) 796 (58.3) Low permissiveness (6-10) 3992 (85.8) 1532 (78.8) 1387 (51.3) 530 (38.8) Communion Sex is the closest form of communication between two people MA7050 FPE7050 YPK5550 Strongly disagree 684 (14.7) 182 (9.4) 266 (9.8) 168 (12.3) Moderately disagree 739 (15.9) 265 (13.6) 652 (24.1) 330 (24.6) Neither disagree nor agree 1030 (22.1) 427 (21.9) 581 (21.5) 370 (27.1) Moderately agree 1171 (25.2) 573 (29.5) 721 (26.7) 308 (22.6) Strongly agree 860 (18.5) 453 (23.3) 389 (14.4) 148 (10.8) Sex is a very important part of life MA7060 FPE7060 YPK5560 Strongly disagree 352 (7.6) 68 (3.5) 632 (23.4) 450 (32.9) Moderately disagree 522 (11.2) 131 (6.7) 1111 (41.1) 538 (39.4) Neither disagree nor agree 1239 (26.6) 281 (14.4) 542 (20.0) 215 (15.7) Moderately agree 1613 (34.7) 720 (37.0) 218 (8.1) 79 (5.8) Strongly agree 768 (16.5) 697 (35.9) 103 (3.8) 44 (3.2) Communion score MA7062 FPE7062 YPK5562 High communion (0-5) 2348 (50.5) 1318 (67.8) 1362 (50.4) 822 (60.2) Low communion (6-10) 2127 (45.7) 578 (29.7) 1244 (46.0) 502 (36.7) Instrumentality Main purpose of sex is enjoyment MA7070 FPE7070 YPK5570 Strongly disagree 213 (4.6) 110 (5.6) 681 (25.2) 294 (21.5) Moderately disagree 496 (10.7) 237 (12.2) 1236 (45.7) 579 (42.4) Neither disagree nor agree 1161 (24.9) 409 (21.0) 437 (16.2) 246 (18.0) Moderately agree 1772 (38.1) 760 (39.1) 204 (7.6) 162 (11.9) Strongly agree 838 (18.0) 382 (19.6) 49 (1.8) 45 (3.3) Sex is primarily a bodily function MA7080 FPE7080 YPK5580 Strongly disagree 1026 (22.0) 418 (21.5) 120 (4.4) 110 (8.0) Moderately disagree 997 (21.4) 435 (22.4) 521 (19.3) 351 (25.7) Neither disagree nor agree 1413 (30.4) 458 (23.5) 810 (30.0) 367 (26.7) Moderately agree 842 (18.1) 417 (21.4) 723 (26.8) 313 (22.9) Strongly agree 193 (4.1) 167 (8.6) 430 (15.9) 185 (13.5) Instrumentality score MA7082 FPE7082 YPK5582 High instrumentality (0-5) 1799 (38.7) 832 (42.8) 1327 (49.1) 696 (50.9) Low instrumentality (6-10) 2662 (57.2) 1062 (54.6) 1276 (47.2) 630 (46.1) Total * 4653 1945 2702 1366 Open in a new tab * Totals are of returned questionnaires. Respondents may not have answered all sections or questions within the questionnaire. Similar proportions of both sexes endorsed moderate/strong agreement that sex should be reserved for marriage (3.9% of G1 females and 4.3% of G1 males) compared with 10.6% of mothers and 13.7% of partners). Only 2.4% of female and 2.8% of male G1s strongly agreed that the main purpose of sex was to have children, and this was very similar to mothers’ attitudes (2.7%), but a larger proportion of partners endorsed this view (5.5%). Table 6a – Table 6e give the correlation coefficients for the items reported in Table 5a and Table 5b , along with the p values in brackets (or in bold for those coefficients at p<0.0001). Unsurprisingly, each pair of questions measuring the three attribute scores (permissiveness, communion and instrumentality) were highly correlated, the highest correlation coefficients for all three cohorts being for the relationships between the two permissiveness items: casual sex is OK, and sex with more than one concurrent partner is permissible. Table 6a. Correlation coefficients with p values in brackets (bold indicates p <.0001) Mothers Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale. Mother 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1.MA7030 Casual sex is acceptable 1.00 2.MA7040 1+ concurrent partners is acceptable 0.55 1.00 3.MA7050 Sex is closest form of communication -0.10 -0.07 1.00 4.MA7060 Sex is very important part of life 0.04 (.009) 0.04 (.010) 0.42 1.00 5.MA7070 Primary point of sex is enjoyment 0.12 0.07 0.21 0.28 1.00 6.MA7080 Sex is a bodily function 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.19 1.00 7.MA7090 Sex should be reserved for marriage 0.36 0.18 -0.13 0.01 (.407) 0.14 0.01 (.420) 1.00 8.MA7100 Central purpose of sex is to have children 0.15 0.09 -0.07 0.05 (.001) 0.12 -0.12 0.42 1.00 Open in a new tab Table 6e. Correlation coefficients with p values in brackets (bold indicates p <.0001) for G1 Females Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale. G1 female 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1.YPK5530 Casual sex is acceptable 1.00 2.YPK5540 1+ concurrent partners is acceptable 0.62 1.00 3.YPK5550 Sex is closest form of communication -0.12 -0.14 1.00 4.YPK5560 Sex is very important part of life 0.19 0.12 0.34 1.00 5.YPK5570 Primary point of sex is enjoyment 0.24 0.16 0.14 0.30 1.00 6.YPK5580 Sex is a bodily function 0.11 0.14 0.16 0.22 0.21 1.00 7.YPK5590 Sex should be reserved for marriage 0.42 0.24 -0.07 (.001) 0.13 0.21 0.05 1.00 8.YPK5600 Central purpose of sex is to have children 0.26 0.21 -0.08 (.001) 0.07 (.001) 0.13 .073 (-0.04) 0.33 1.00 Open in a new tab Table 5b. Frequencies for the non-BSAS questions. Non-BSAS questions Mothers N (%) Partners N (%) YP Females N (%) YP Males N (%) Sex should be reserved for marriage MA7090 FPE7090 YPK5590 Strongly disagree 2413 (51.9) 936 (48.1) 1993 (73.8) 1046 (76.6) Moderately disagree 739 (15.9) 359 (18.6) 306 (11.3) 149 (10.9) Neither disagree nor agree 835 (17.9) 331 (17.0) 200 (7.4) 72 (5.3) Moderately agree 244 (5.2) 125 (6.4) 42 (1.5) 22 (1.6) Strongly agree 250 (5.4) 143 (7.3) 66 (2.4) 37 (2.7) Main purpose of sex is to have children MA7100 FPE7100 YPK5600 Strongly disagree 2087 (44.9) 712 (36.6) 1215 (45.0) 565 (41.4) Moderately disagree 786 (16.9) 384 (19.7) 500 (18.5) 254 (18.6) Neither disagree nor agree 982 (21.1) 434 (22.3) 475 (17.6) 275 (20.1) Moderately agree 493 (10.6) 256 (13.2) 347 (12.8) 193 (14.1) Strongly agree 125 (2.7) 108 (5.5) 65 (2.4) 39 (2.8) Total * 4653 1945 2702 1366 Open in a new tab * Totals are of returned questionnaires. Respondents may not have answered all sections or questions within the questionnaire. Table 6b. Correlation coefficients with p values in brackets (bold indicates p <.0001) for Partners Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale. Partner 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1.FPE7030 Casual sex is acceptable 1.00 2.FPE7040 1+ concurrent partners is acceptable 0.60 1.00 3.FPE7050 Sex is closest form of communication -0.09 (.001) -0.06 (.011) 1.00 4.FPE7060 Sex is very important part of life 0.06 (.010) 0.07 (.003) 0.40 1.00 5.FPE7070 Primary point of sex is enjoyment 0.11 0.13 0.14 0.21 1.00 6.FPE7080 Sex is a bodily function 0.14 0.17 0.02 (.371) 0.01 (.715) 0.27 1.00 7.FPE7090 Sex should be reserved for marriage -0.38 -0.23 0.07 (.001) -0.08 (.001) -0.11 -0.03 (.265) 1.00 8.FPE7100 Central purpose of sex is to have children -0.09 -0.06 (.010) 0.00 (.830) -0.02 (.335) -0.02 (.314) 0.11 0.35 1.00 Open in a new tab Table 6c. Correlation coefficients with p values in brackets (bold indicates p <.0001) all G1s Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale. G1s 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1.YPK5530 Casual sex is acceptable 1.00 2.YPK5540 1+ concurrent partners is acceptable 0.62 1.00 3.YPK5550 Sex is closest form of communication -0.11 -0.12 1.00 4.YPK5560 Sex is very important part of life 0.21 0.13 0.34 1.00 5.YPK5570 Primary point of sex is enjoyment 0.23 0.15 0.13 0.27 1.00 6.YPK5580 Sex is a bodily function 0.11 0.15 0.16 0.21 0.22 1.00 7.YPK5590 Sex should be reserved for marriage 0.45 0.27 -0.08 0.13 0.21 0.06 1.00 8.YPK5600 Central purpose of sex is to have children 0.24 0.19 -0.08 0.05 (.001) 0.10 -0.06 (.001) 0.33 1.00 Open in a new tab Table 6d. Correlation coefficients with p values in brackets (bold indicates p <.0001) G1 Males Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale. G1 Male 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1.YPK5530 Casual sex is acceptable 1.00 2.YPK5540 1+ concurrent partners is acceptable 0.61 1.00 3.YPK5550 Sex is closest form of communication -0.10 (.001) -0.09 (.001) 1.00 4.YPK5560 Sex is very important part of life 0.23 0.14 0.32 1.00 5.YPK5570 Primary point of sex is enjoyment 0.23 0.16 0.13 0.24 1.00 6.YPK5580 Sex is a bodily function 0.10 (.001) 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.27 1.00 7.YPK5590 Sex should be reserved for marriage 0.53 0.31 -0.10 0.13 0.20 0.06 (.026) 1.00 8.YPK5600 Central purpose of sex is to have children 0.23 0.17 -0.07 (.010) 0.04 (.139) 0.06 (.034) -0.09 (.001) 0.32 1.00 Open in a new tab Sexual Behaviours. Table 7 summarises the responses to the questions on potentially ‘risky’ and other behaviours. By the age of ~30 years for the G1 cohort, 2.4% of females and 4.9% of males reported they had not yet experienced sexual intercourse. Females were more likely than males to report sexual debut prior to 16 years of age: 30.6% of females were aged 15 and under compared with 19.2% of males. However, the contrast between the female generations is quite marked with 13.7% of G0 mothers reporting sexual debut before the age of 16. A difference was seen in the male generations, but it was not as wide (11% in G0 partners compared to 18.7% of G1 males). Table 7. Frequencies relating to sexual behaviours. <5 may equal zero. Percentages are of total respondents to questionnaires for the parents, but only of the sexually active offspring. Mothers N (%) Partners N (%) YP Females N (%) YP Males N (%) Has not had sex yet (as % of total respondents) N/A N/A 65 (2.4) 67 (4.9) Age at sexual debut MA7110 FPE7110 YPK5610 ≤12 years 25 (0.5) 11 (0.6) 16 (0.6) 7 (0.5) 13 54 (1.2) 18 (0.9) 67 (2.5) 23 (1.8) 14 162 (3.5) 65 (3.3) 223 (8.5) 75 (5.8) 15 401 (8.6) 127 (6.5) 500 (19.0) 144 (11.1) 16 874 (18.8) 272 (14.0) 561 (21.3) 260 (20.0) 17–20 2226 (47.8) 948 (48.7) 935 (35.5) 552 (42.5) 21–24 392 (8.4) 253 (13.0) 119 (4.5) 113 (8.7) 25+ years 122 (2.6) 114 (5.7) 50 (1.9) 34 (2.6) Prefer not to answer 257 (5.5) 90 (4.6) 69 (2.6) 44 (3.4) Met first sexual partner at: MA7120 FPE7120 YPK620 School, College, University 1475 (31.7) 714 (36.7) 1232 (46.7) 651 (50.1) At or through work 394 (8.5) 183 (9.4) 133 (5.0) 53 (4.1) Pub, bar, night club, dance 786 (16.9) 283 (14.5) 149 (5.6) 82 (0.1) Introduced by family, friends 903 (19.4) 289 (14.9) 559 (21.2) 193 (14.9) Sports club or other organisation/society 136 (2.9) 81 (4.2) 17 (0.6) 12 (0.9) Faith group 239 (5.1) 108 (5.6) 106 (4.0) 63 (4.8) On holiday or while travelling 167 (3.6) 74 (3.8) 78 (3.0) 37 (2.8) Internet dating website/app 12 (0.3) <5 105 (4.0) 86 (6.6) Always known each other 103 (2.2) 47 (2.4) 39 (1.5) 20 (1.5) Public place (park, café, shop, public transport) 110 (2.4) 35 (1.8) 65 (2.5) 15 (1.1) Other 122 (2.6) 56 (3.3) 43 (1.6) 39 (3.0) Had been drinking alcohol prior to sexual debut MA7130 FPE7130 YPK5630 No 3182 (68.4) 1232 (63.3) 1686 (63.9) 791 (60.9) Yes 645 (13.9) 427 (21.9) 732 (27.8) 390 (30.0) Cannot remember 606 (13.0) 224 (11.5) 114 (4.3) 71 (5.5) Had been using drugs prior to sexual debut MA7140 FPE7140 YPK5640 No 4354 (93.6) 1839 (94.5) 2459 (93.2) 1194 (91.9) Yes 19 (0.4) 7 (0.4) 39 (1.5) 26 (2.0) Cannot remember 40 (0.9) 24 (1.2) 26 (0.1) 28 (2.1) Used a condom at sexual debut MA7150 FPE7150 YPK5650 No 1847 (39.7) 1058 (54.4) 533 (20.2) 323 (24.9) Yes 2157 (46.4) 711 (36.6) 1843 (69.9) 862 (68.7) Cannot remember 424 (9.6) 111 (5.7) 156 (5.9) 63 (4.8) Used other type of contraception at sexual debut MA7160 FPE7160 YPK5660 No 2603 (60.4) 1053 (54.1) 1516 (57.5) 679 (52.3) Yes 1293 (30.0) 553 (28.4) 889 (33.7) 364 (28.0) Cannot remember 413 (9.1) 246 (12.6) 120 (4.6) 199 (15.3) No. sexual partners in previous 2 years MA7310 FPE7310 YPK5810 0 1206 (25.9) 369 (19.0) 135 (5.1) 71 (5.4) 1 3116 (67.0) 1440 (74.0) 2009 (76.2) 897 (69.0) 2–3 81 (1.7) 49 (2.5) 251 (9.5) 158 (12.2) 4–9 9 (0.2) 8 (0.4) 121 (4.6) 71 (5.5) 10+ <5 6 (0.3) 16 (0.6) 47 (3.6) Total no. sexual partners in life MA7320 FPE7320 YPK5820 1 924 (19.9) 352 (18.1) 291 (11.0) 153 (11.8) 2–3 1121 (24.1) 394 (20.3) 396 (15.0) 238 (18.3) 4–9 1462 (31.4) 624 (32.1) 801 (30.4) 358 (27.6) 10+ 811 (17.4) 455 (23.4) 1011 (38.3) 483 (37.9) Total* 4653 1945 2637 1299 Open in a new tab Generational differences were also evident for where participants met their first sexual partner: A greater proportion of G1s met at an educational institution or via an internet dating website/app compared to G0s. Conversely, G0s were more likely to have met through work; at a pub, bar, nightclub, dance/disco; a sports club or other organisation. For both generations and sexes, an educational institution (school, college or university) was the most frequently cited followed by being introduced by family or friends ( Table 7 ). Whilst very few participants in both generations reported using drugs prior to their sexual debut (<2%), alcohol had been consumed by around a third of G1s, compared to 14% of G0 mothers and 22% of G0 partners. Perhaps unsurprisingly around double the older generation (over 10%) stated they could not remember ( Table 7 ). Condom use at sexual debut is one measure of ‘sexual readiness’ and almost 70% of G1 recalled using a condom, compared with 46.4% of G0 mothers and 36.6% of G0 partners. Between 28% and 34% of all participants recalled using another type of contraception at sexual debut, but these were not specified in this questionnaire ( Table 7 ). Detailed information on types of contraception used have been collected previously at multiple time points. The majority of G0s (67% mothers vs. 74% of partners) reported having had just one sex partner within the previous two years; this is comparable to G1 females (76.2%) and 69% of G1 males. Six-times as many G1 males reported 10 or more partners (3.6%) vs 0.6% of G1 females. Just over 5% of G1s reported zero partners in the last 2 years, compared with much higher rates in G0s (almost 26% of mothers and 19% of the partners) ( Table 7 ). Perhaps unsurprisingly there were generational and sex differences regarding the number of sexual partners over the lifespan: roughly similar proportions of mothers and partners reported one partner, 2-3 or 4-9 partners. The largest differences between the generations were seen in those reporting one sexual partner with ~11% of G1s and ~20% of G0s reporting this; and the 10+ sexual partners category with 38.3% of G1 females vs 17.4% of G0 mothers and 37.9% of G1 males vs 23.4% of the G0 partners ( Table 7 ). Frequency and Enjoyment of Sexual Intercourse. Table 8 summarises the responses to current frequency and enjoyment of sexual intercourse. In the G1s, similar proportions of both sexes are seen for all six options for frequency. Over a third of mothers and 26.2% of partners reported no sex at all. G0 reported reduced frequencies overall compared to G1. The most striking differences between the sexes was in the proportion of participants who reported that they enjoyed sexual intercourse. A small proportion of respondents reported that they did not enjoy sex at all. More women in both generations stated ‘No, not a lot’ (7.7% of G0 mothers and 4.4% of their G1 daughters vs. 1.4% of G0 partners <1% of the G1 sons). 40% of G0 mothers and 48% of G1 daughters reported they enjoyed sex “very much” compared to 75.5% of G0 partners and 71.2% of G1 sons ( Table 8 ). Table 8. Reported frequencies for sexual intercourse and of enjoyment of sex. <5 may equal zero. Percentages are of total respondents to questionnaires for the parents, but only of sexually active offspring. Mothers N (%) Partners N (%) YP Females N (%) YP Males N (%) Frequency of sexual intercourse nowadays MA7330 FPE7330 YPK5830 Not at all 1595 (34.3) 510 (26.2) 270 (10.2) 111 (8.5) <1 month 1039 (22.3) 529 (27.2) 453 (17.2) 247 (19.0) 1–3 times/month 880 (18.9) 441 (22.7) 735 (27.9) 340 (26.2) About once/week 594 (12.8) 264 (13.6) 622 (23.6) 303 (23.3) 2–4 times/week 297 (6.4) 126 (6.5) 411 (15.6) 222 (17.1) 5 or more times/week 23 (0.5) 8 (0.4) 41 (1.6) 22 (1.7) Generally, respondent enjoys sex MA7340 FPE7340 YPK5840 Not at all 73 (1.7) 7 (0.4) 17 (0.6) <5 No, not a lot 342 (7.3) 27 (1.4) 116 (4.4) 22 (1.7) Yes, somewhat/sometimes 2243 (48.2) 427 (22.7) 1139 (43.2) 298 (22.9) Yes, very much 1769 (38.0) 1419 (75.5) 1262 (47.9) 925 (71.2) Total (100%) 4653 1945 2637 1299 Open in a new tab Sexual Regret. Table 9a provides the frequencies related to sexual regret. Women were more likely to have sexual regrets than men. Interestingly, both sexes in the younger generation regretted their sexual debut slightly more than the parent generation. Most striking is the frequencies of those reporting regretting their sexual debut ‘quite a lot’ or ‘very much’: 10% of G0 mothers and G1 daughters compared to 2.7% of G0 partners and 3.5% of G1 males. Table 9a. Frequencies related to sexual regret. Please note that participants were asked to tick all the reasons for regret that applied or may not have ticked any. Cell counts of <5 may include zero. Percentages of total respondents to Qs Mothers N=4653 (%) Partners N=1945 (%) YP Females N=2637 (%) YP Males N=1299 (%) Respondent regretted their sexual debut MA7170 FPE7170 YPK5670 No 3520 (75.6) 1721 (88.5) 1960 (74.3) 1099 (84.6) Yes 779 (16.7) 109 (5.6) 541 (20.5) 124 (9.5) Cannot remember 126 (2.7) 45 (2.3) 31 (1.2) 24 (1.8) Degree to which the respondent regretted their sexual debut MA7180 FPE7180 YPK5680 A little bit 279 (5.6) 55 (2.8) 208 (7.9) 77 (5.9) Quite a lot 278 (5.6) 33 (1.7) 160 (6.1) 22 (1.7) Very much 207 (4.5) 20 (1.0) 170 (6.4) 24 (1.8) When respondent looks back at all their sexual experiences, they have regrets MA7190 FPE7190 YPK5690 No, no regrets 2687 (57.7) 1366 (70.2) 1120 (44.5) 775 (59.7) Regret some of it 1618 (34.8) 501 (25.8) 1279 (48.5) 461 (35.5) Regret most of it 101 (2.2) 7 (0.4) 114 (4.3) 16 (1.2) Regret all of it 30 (0.6) 7 (0.4) 20 (0.8) <5 Of those with regrets, reasons for regret if indicated (multiple items may have been ticked): N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) Resulted in unplanned pregnancy * MA7200 FPE7200 YPK5700 Yes 228 (13.6) 52 (10.6) 148 (10.5) 32 (6.7) Resulted in sexually transmitted infection MA7210 FPE7210 YPK5710 Yes 141 (8.4) 44 (9.0) 259 (18.3) 81 (16.9) The relationship was violent MA7220 FPE7220 YPK5720 Yes 131 (7.8) <5 166 (11.7) 13 (2.7) Respondent felt they were being used MA7230 FPE7230 YPK5730 Yes 641 (38.2) 27 (5.5) 697 (49.3) 87 (18.2) Respondent used someone against their will MA7240 FPE7240 YPK5740 Yes 5 (0.3) 9 (1.8) 7 (0.5) 8 (1.7) Never found the right person MA7250 FPE7250 YPK5750 Yes 173 (10.3) 54 (11.0) 245 (17.3) 88 (18.4) Against their religious faith MA7260 FPE7260 YPK5760 Yes 66 (3.9) 17 (3.5) 25 (1.8) 8 (1.7) It happened too soon/they should have waited MA7270 FPE7270 YPK5770 Yes 459 (27.4) 69 (14.1) 412 (29.2) 73 (15.3) Resulted in a termination/abortion * MA7280 FPE7280 YPK5780 Yes 172 (10.3) 14 (2.9) 143 (10.1) 19 (4.0) Regrets they didn’t have more sex MA7290 FPE7290 YPK5790 Yes 142 (8.5) 203 (41.3) 143 (10.1) 162 (33.9) Other reasons for regret MA7300 FPE7300 YPK5800 Yes 307 (18.3) 105 (21.3) 344 (24.3) 142 (29.7) Open in a new tab * The ‘mother’ may not have informed her sex partner of the pregnancy; terminations of pregnancy may also be included under unplanned pregnancies. 44% of G1 females reported that they had no regrets at all (compared with almost 60% of their G0 mothers). Almost half of these young G1 women said they regretted some and over 5% claimed to regret most or all of their sexual experiences. All levels of regret were much higher in the G1 females compared to all other groups. Of those that expressed any level of regret, differences can be seen between the generations: slightly fewer unplanned pregnancies were reported in the G1s; and similar rates in both generations when it came to such a pregnancy ending in a termination. A large difference was seen inter-generationally in contracting a sexually transmitted infection (STI), where frequencies were roughly double in the G1s. Sex differences were noted with women in both generations more likely to report regret due to a violent relationship, or that they felt they were being used (both reasons slightly higher in the G1 females compared G0 mothers). However, G1 males were more likely to regret a violent relationship or feel they were being used compared with G0 partners. Not finding the “right person” was almost twice as common among G1s compared with G0s, but this probably reflects their youth ( Table 9a ). Women in both generations were much more likely to report regret because sex happened too soon/they should have waited (again roughly double than male responders). Conversely, both G0 partners and G1 males were more likely to express regret that they had not had more sex (41% and 34% respectively) versus G0 mothers (8.5%) and G1 females (10.1%) ( Table 9a ). Table 9b summarises the free text responses to ‘other reason’ for regret. Participants were most likely to report regretting unfaithfulness, ‘promiscuity’, immaturity or the wrong person/reason etc. Of particular note, was the much higher frequencies of experiencing sexual abuse/rape/non-consensual sex in women in both generations. In addition, women were more likely to report that a specific sexual encounter would not have happened if they had had the confidence to say ‘no’, i.e. acquiescence. Please note that these text responses have not yet been mapped to the tick box responses in Table 9a and there may be a few duplicates where they were giving more detail to a ticked box. Table 9b. Summarisation of the most common other reasons (text responses) for regretting their sexual past (these have not been compared with tick box answers in Table 9a ; individuals may appear under more than one reason; some may have ticked other reason but omitted to add text). Cell counts of <5 may include zero. Other reasons for regret (individuals may appear under 1+ categories) Mothers N (%) Partners N (%) YP Females N (%) YP Males N (%) Variable name MA7300 FPE7300 YPK5800 Total who ticked ‘other’ regardless of whether or not a text response was given 307 105 344 142 Being unfaithful to own partner/Discovered sex partner was being unfaithful to their spouse/partner 33 14 17 12 Historical sexual abuse/sexual assault of self or partner; rape; IPV; specified non-consensual sex whilst drunk; I was coerced/I was coercive; Physical or emotional abuse 44 <5 63 8 Ruined friendship(s); Slept with work colleague <5 <5 8 8 Too casual/impulsive; too promiscuous; meaningless sex; A one-night stand; thoughtlessness; selfishness; paid for sex 51 20 29 10 Caused later emotional problems incl. hurting others; loss of self-confidence/self-esteem; induced anxiety. Unrequited love; to boost self-esteem; to feel happy; to give me confidence; to cure loneliness, insecurity. Guilt NOS. 9 7 24 9 Immaturity/Inexperience (incl. performance issues, lack of enjoyment, we should have waited), embarrassment. 23 16 21 13 Wrong person/time/location/reason incl. rebound & revenge sex. Problem(s) with partner’s attributes. 53 14 62 27 More adventurous/not enough sex/missed opportunities/should have experimented more. Just some regrets NOS 11 <5 <5 6 Did not use protection or resulted in pregnancy * ; Worries/anxiety about the risk of pregnancy or catching an STI; Putting oneself in physical danger. 6 <5 12 11 Alcohol/Drunkenness/Drugs without the label ‘non-consensual’, e.g. we were both too drunk; ‘beer-goggles’. 6 <5 40 18 Peer pressure, e.g. It was expected; Not saying ‘no’, Not having the confidence to say ‘no’; acquiescence 13 <5 22 <5 Caused other complications e.g. awkwardness 10 <5 15 6 Unclassifiable (e.g. private, prefer not to say, cannot remember) 14 6 7 9 Open in a new tab IPV = Intimate Partner Violence; NOS = Not otherwise stated; STI = sexually transmitted infection. * Whether or not pregnancy resulted in a termination or livebirth. Unfortunately, from the available data, it is difficult to ascertain whether respondents regretted the sexual act itself or the consequences of it. Text responses ( Table 9b ) are not particularly helpful in this regard, some are clearly concerned with sexual debut (e.g. ‘the first time it was painful’), but others are more ambiguous (e.g. ‘it was a violent relationship’). In retrospect, the layout of the questions could have been much improved with separate tick box lists for regret at debut vs lifetime regret. In addition to the data described above, collected in the summer of 2022, a second questionnaire administered in the winter of 2022 was completed by the G0 cohort only. This contained additional questions on gender which may be of interest to readers. The actual questions and frequencies are given in Table 10 . Table 10. Frequencies from the gender questions (G0 parent cohorts only). Note that cells <5 may equal zero; *Participant identifies as non-binary, transgender and ‘other’ have been collapsed to protect participant anonymity. Question and tick box responses G0 Mothers N (%) G0 Partners N (%) Which of the following most accurately describe(s) you? Please choose as many as you like: Female, Male, Non-binary, Transgender, Intersex, Let me tell you (text response), I prefer not to say. (Mother/Partner variable label) Identifies as female (Vars MB8810/FPF8810) No 12 (0.3) 2003 (99.7) Yes 4639 (99.7) 7 (0.3) Identifies as male (Vars MB8820/FPF8820) No 4645 (99.9) 14 (0.7) Yes 6 (0.1) 1996 (99.3) Identifies as other (amalgamated)* (Vars MB8860/FPF8860) No 4646 (99.9) 2001 (99.6) Yes 5 (0.1) 9 (0.4) I prefer not to say (MB8870/FPF8870) No 4645 (99.9) Yes 6 (0.1) Total completing this question 4651 2010 Many people feel that they are a mixture of masculine and feminine characteristics regardless of their gender. Please rate how much you see yourself in such a mixture on a scale of 1 to 10. (MB8880/FPF8880) 0 100% Masculine <5 1167 (58.2) 1 <5 184 (9.2) 2 <5 160 (8.0) 3 8 (0.2) 55 (2.7) 4 23 (0.5) 21 (1.0) 5 Equal 115 (2.5) 40 (2.0) 6 42 (0.9) <5 7 136 (2.9) 5 (0.2) 8 239 (5.2) <5 9 191 (4.1) <5 10 100% Feminine 2454 (53.0) 5 (0.2) Don’t think in these terms 1331 (28.8) 336 (16.7) Prefer not to answer 23 (0.5) 7 (0.3) Don’t know 55 (1.2) 18 (0.9) Total completing this question 4629 2006 Open in a new tab Discussion Over the last 3-5 decades there is evidence of increasing age at sexual debut. A large study collected data on sexual debut among 15-year-olds in 2010, 2014 and 2018 (n= >55,000 at each sweep) in 33 European countries and compared this with gender inequality and gender role attitudes within these countries ( de Graaf et al., 2025 ). They found that girls were much less likely to report early sexual debut than boys, more so in Eastern and Southern Europe where gender inequality is higher and gender role attitudes are more conservative than in Western and Northern Europe. This study also confirmed previous findings of decreasing numbers of sexually active early adolescents even within this relatively short period of time. Another example in the U.S., Twenge & Park (2019) found that among 13-19-year-olds between 1976 and 2016 (n=8.44 million) the rate of adolescents engaging in ‘adult’ activities including dating, sexual intercourse and drinking alcohol has been decreasing, especially in those from more advantaged backgrounds. A review of the literature concerning the UK by Hawes et al. (2010) also found a fall since the 1990s in the age at which adolescents become sexually active. Those with later debut and/or regular use of contraception being more likely to have aspirations for continuing education; had obtained sexual knowledge through school sex education lessons (rather than friends or media); and having higher religiosity (especially as measured by weekly attendance at a place of worship). We found that in both ALSPAC generations females were more likely to report sexual debut under the age of 16 than males. In contrast to the general trends reported above, we found the younger generation were more likely to debut prior to 16 than the G0s. This may be because of recall bias in the G0s (who were aged between ~46 to 70+ years in 2022); better reporting and reduced stigma among the G1 females. There may be regional effects in that ALSPAC is not nationally representative, or it may be due to social desirability bias between the generations. Strengths and limitations A key strength of ALSPAC is that the population is geographically defined and included the majority (~80%) of the eligible pregnant population at the time of enrolment. Other strengths include a large sample size, the longitudinal design, regular administration of questionnaires with repeated questions over time, genetic and other -omics data, and annual face-to-face clinics for the offspring that reduce the chance of recall error in the earlier sweeps on sexual experiences (and other data), which will likely be used in conjunction with these 2022 data, plus the availability of data on potential confounding factors. Extensive data collection in ALSPAC on sexual experiences, sexual functioning, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), sexual well-being and behaviour in previous sweeps allows for research on a wide variety of topics. The 2022 data sweep allows comparison of general attitudes towards sex, with current enjoyment and regret of their sexual experiences. As identical data has been collected on both generations this allows for intergenerational comparisons. Some questions were identical to those asked by NATSAL-3 which allows for direct comparisons. There is, however, one caveat to this: the initially enrolled mothers and their partners were soon to be parents and thus not generalisable to the non-reproducing population. As noted in the Background the parent generation have a wide age range, with mothers born from 1950 and partners from 1926. Whilst we have not collected data on sex education to the parent generation, there are two variables which may be of interest concerning the offspring: Provision of sex education in Year 3 (ages 7-8) (variable sb221) and in Year 6 (ages 10-11) (variable sf221). As with all longitudinal studies, attrition in ALSPAC is strongly related to socioeconomic position. ALSPAC participants were more likely to become lost to follow-up in the early years if they had experienced greater adversity during the index pregnancy (e.g. lack of social support or inadequate housing). Therefore, selection bias becomes a problem such that the current participants are more socio-economically advantaged and have higher educational attainment compared with those no longer taking part. This may introduce bias in these data as early sexual debut is more common in lower SES. Both G0 and G1 males are more likely to drop out than G0 and G1 female participants. At the time of enrolment there were very few families of other than White ethnicity in the Avon area (~6%) and therefore research results cannot necessarily be extrapolated to non-White populations in general. Since these data were self-reported, they may be subject to recall error (particularly for G0s), if the experiences described occurred many years ago and therefore some events may have been forgotten or misremembered. It is also possible that respondents who had traumatic initial sexual experiences may have mentally blocked them out (e.g. Carver et al. , 1989 ; Lyon, 2007 ). Retrospective reporting may lead to possible recall bias (for example, if participants believed that an earlier sexual experience was a cause of their past or current mental health problems, see Das & Otis, 2016 , for a review of the literature; and Liu et al. (2022) ). The questions on sexual experiences, attitudes, enjoyment and regret are sensitive, and some respondents chose not to answer them. 1.9% of mothers who returned the questionnaire missed the entire section; for partners 0.97% missed the section. for G1s, 2.87% missed the section (83 females (3.07%) and 34 (2.47%) males). It is possible that those with high numbers of sexual partners omitted this section due to social desirability or did not want to ‘relive’ traumatic experiences or simply felt it was too private to share. Although some respondents may have felt some kind of pressure to answer questions in a socially acceptable way, ALSPAC participants have previously answered sensitive questions (e.g. on adverse experiences and mental health) safe in the knowledge that confidentiality is of paramount importance to the study. For example, in an antenatal questionnaire to the mothers with a section on childhood sexual experiences and abuse: that section was omitted by only 10% of the mothers (see Iles-Caven & Golding, 2024a ). Conclusion This rich data resource may be of interest to researchers examining the transgenerational differences in sexual attitudes and behaviours, age at sexual debut, numbers of sexual partners, potential effects on health and well-being, and the quality of intimate relationships. Ethics and consent Ethical approval for the ALSPAC study was obtained from the ALSPAC Ethics and Law Committee (ALEC; IRB00003312) and the Local Research Ethics Committees. Detailed information on the ways in which confidentiality of the cohort is maintained may be found on the study website: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/researchers/research-ethics/ . All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations. Informed written consent for the use of data collected through questionnaires and clinics was provided by participants following the recommendations of the ALSPAC Ethics and Law Committee at the time. Study participants have the right to withdraw their consent for elements of the study or from the study entirely at any time ( Birmingham, 2018 ). Data availability Underlying data ALSPAC data access is through a system of managed open access. The steps below highlight how to apply for access to the data included in this paper and all other ALSPAC data. Note that variable names are included in the tables within this paper. Please read the ALSPAC access policy ( http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/alspac/documents/researchers/data-access/ALSPAC_Access_Policy.pdf ) which describes the process of accessing the data and biological samples in detail, and outlines the costs associated with doing so. 1. You may also find it useful to browse our fully searchable research proposals database ( https://proposals.epi.bristol.ac.uk/ ), which lists all research projects that have been approved since April 2011. 2. Please submit your research proposal ( https://proposals.epi.bristol.ac.uk/ ) for consideration by the ALSPAC Executive Committee using the online process. You will receive a response within 10 working days to advise you whether your proposal has been approved. If you have any questions about accessing data, please email: [email protected] (data) or [email protected] (samples). The ALSPAC data management plan ( http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/alspac/documents/researchers/data-access/alspac-data-management-plan.pdf ) describes in detail the policy regarding data sharing, which is through a system of managed open access. Acknowledgements We are extremely grateful to all the families who took part in this study, the midwives for their help in recruiting them, and the whole ALSPAC team, which includes interviewers, computer and laboratory technicians, clerical workers, research scientists, volunteers, managers, receptionists, and nurses. Funding Statement The UK Medical Research Council and Wellcome (grant ref: 217065/Z/19/Z) and the University of Bristol currently provide core support for ALSPAC. This publication is the work of the authors and Yasmin Iles-Caven will serve as guarantor for the contents of this paper. A comprehensive list of grants funding is available on the ALSPAC website (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/external/documents/grant-acknowledgements.pdf). This publication was made possible through the support of a grant from the John Templeton Foundation (61917). The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of this manuscript. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] References Berry JW, Worthington EL, Jr, O'Connor LE, et al. : Forgivingness, vengeful rumination, and affective traits. J Pers. 2005;73(1):183–226. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00308.x [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Birmingham KE: Pioneering ethics in longitudinal studies: the early development of the ALSPAC ethics & law committee. Bristol: Policy Press;2018. 10.56687/9781447340423 Reference Source [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Boyd A, Golding J, Macleod J, et al. : Cohort profile: the ‘children of the 90s’; the index offspring of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC). Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42(1):111–127. 10.1093/ije/dys0643600618 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Board of Education Educational Pamphlet no. 119: Sex education in schools and youth organisations. London: HMSO;1943(accessed 05.01.2026). https://education-uk.org/documents/boardofed/1943-sex-ed.html [ Google Scholar ] Carver CS, Scheier MF, Weintraub JK: Assessing coping strategies: a theoretically based approach. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1989;56(2):267–283. 10.1037//0022-3514.56.2.267 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Das A, Otis N: Sexual contact in childhood, revictimization, and lifetime sexual and psychological outcomes. Arch Sex Behav. 2016;45(5):1117–1131. 10.1007/s10508-015-0620-3 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Graaf H, Schouten F, Dorsselaer S, et al. : Trends and the gender gap in the reporting of sexual initiation among 15-year-olds: A comparison of 33 European countries. J Sex Res. 2025;62(4):445–454. 10.1080/00224499.2023.2297906 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Fraser A, Macdonald-Wallis C, Tilling K, et al. : Cohort profile: the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children: ALSPAC mothers’ cohort. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42(1):97–110. 10.1093/ije/dys0663600619 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Golden RL, Furman W, Collibee C: The risks and rewards of sexual debut. Dev Psychol. 2016;52(11):1913–1925. 10.1037/dev0000206 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. : Research Electronic Data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–381. 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Hawes ZC, Wellings K, Stephenson J: First heterosexual intercourse in the United Kingdom: a review of the literature. J Sex Res. 2010;47:137–152. 10.1080/00224490903509399 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Hendrick C, Hendrick SS, Reich DA: The brief sexual attitudes scale. J Sex Res. 2006;43(1):76–86. 10.1080/00224490609552301 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Hendrick S, Hendrick C: Multidimensionality of sexual attitudes. J Sex Res. 1987;23(4):502–526. 10.1080/00224498709551387 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Hinchliff S, Lewis R, Wellings K, et al. : Pathways to help-seeking for sexual difficulties in older adults: qualitative findings from the third National survey of sexual attitudes and lifestyles (Natsal-3). Age Ageing. 2021;50(2):546–553. 10.1093/ageing/afaa2817936020 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Iles-Caven Y, Golding J: Sexual experiences and behaviours of the parents in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Childhood (ALSPAC) [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. Wellcome Open Res. 2024a;9:240. 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.21263.2 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Iles-Caven Y, Golding J: Sexual experiences and behaviours in the offspring generation of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Childhood (ALSPAC) [version 2; peer review: 3 approved]. Wellcome Open Res. 2024b;9:241. 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.21687.2 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Kahn NF, Halpern CT: Associations between patterns of sexual initiation, sexual partnering, and sexual health outcomes from adolescence to early adulthood. Arch Sex Behav. 2018;47(6):1791–1810. 10.1007/s10508-018-1176-9 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Kastbom AA, Sydsjö G, Bladh M, et al. : Sexual debut before the age of 14 leads to poorer psychosocial health and risky behaviour in later life. Acta Paediatr. 2015;104(1):91–100. 10.1111/apa.12803 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Kennair LEO, Wyckoff JP, Asao K, et al. : Why do women regret casual sex more than men do? Pers Individ Dif. 2018;127:61–67. 10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.044 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Liu H, Shen S, Russ M: “Went along with”: acquiescence during first sexual experience and late-life health. Arch Sex Behav. 2022;51(3):1591–1605. 10.1007/s10508-021-02206-2 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Lyon TD: False denials: overcoming methodological biases in abuse disclosure research. In: Pipe ME, Lamb ME, Orbach Y, Cederborg AC: Child sexual abuse: Disclosure, delay, and denial. Erlbaum,2007;41–62. Reference Source [ Google Scholar ] Mårdh PA, Creatsas G, Guaschino S, et al. : Correlation between an early sexual debut, and reproductive health and behavioral factors: a multinational European study. Eur J Contracep Reprod Health Care. 2000;5(3):177–182. 10.1080/13625180008500396 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] McCullough ME, Emmons RA, Tsang JA: Gratitude questionnaire-6. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002; 10.1037/t01837-000 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Meier AM: Adolescent first sex and subsequent mental health. Am J Sociol. 2007;112(6):1811–1847. 10.1086/512708 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Northstone K, Ben-Shlomo Y, Teyham A, et al. : The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children ALSPAC G0 partners: a cohort profile [version 2; peer review: 1 approved]. Wellcome Open Res. 2023;8(37) 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.18782.1 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Northstone K, Brierley E, Harvey J, et al. : The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC): an updated on the enrolled sample of index children in 2025. Wellcome Open research. 2025;10:689. 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.25018.1 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Northstone K, Lewcock M, Groom A: The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC): an updated on the enrolled sample of index children in 2019 [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. Wellcome Open Res. 2019;4:51. 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15132.1 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Pilcher J: School sex education: policy and practice in England 1870 to 2000. Sex Educ. 2005;5(2):153–170. 10.1080/14681810500038848 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Romppel M, Herrmann-Lingen C, Wachter R, et al. : A short form of the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE-6): development, psychometric properties and validity in an intercultural non-clinical sample and a sample of patients at risk of heart failure. GMS Psychosoc Med. 2013;10:Doc01. 10.3205/psm000091 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Rushton JP, Chrisjohn RD, Fekken GC: The altruistic personality and the self-report altruism scale. Pers Individ Dif. 1981;2(4):293–302. 10.1016/0191-8869(81)90084-2 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Sandfort TGM, Orr M, Hirsch JS, et al. : Long-term health correlates of timing of sexual debut: results from a national US study. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(1):155–161. 10.2105/AJPH.2006.097444 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Scheier MF, Carver CS, Bridges MW: Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): a re-evaluation of the Life Orientation Test. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994;67(6):1063–1078. 10.1037//0022-3514.67.6.1063 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Sex Education Forum (accessed 05.01.2026): Our history ‐ 30 years of campaigning Our history - 30 years of campaigning | sexeducationforum.org.uk Simpson E: Sex Education: Looking to the Past to Inform the Present. History of Education Society. 2020. Sex Education: Looking to the Past to Inform the Present - History of Education Society (accessed 06.01.2026) [ Google Scholar ] Steger MF, Frazier P, Oishi S, et al. : The Meaning in Life Questionnaire: assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. J Couns Psychol. 2006;53(1):80–93. 10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Twenge JM, Park H: The decline in adult activities among US adolescents, 1976–2016. Child Dev. 2019;90(2):638–654. 10.1111/cdev.12930 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Wellcome Open Res. 2026 Apr 17. doi: 10.21956/wellcomeopenres.29042.r153201 Reviewer response for version 2 Chantal den Daas Chantal den Daas 1 University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK Referee Find articles by Chantal den Daas 1 Author information Copyright and License information 1 University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Roles Chantal den Daas : Referee Copyright: © 2026 den Daas C This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. PMC Copyright notice The authors have carefully and thoughtfully replied to all observations. I have no other observations. Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others? No Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described? Yes Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Yes Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Reviewer Expertise: Health psychology, behaviour in infection prevention, focus on sexual health. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Wellcome Open Res. 2025 Dec 31. doi: 10.21956/wellcomeopenres.25395.r140049 Reviewer response for version 1 Elise Bragard Elise Bragard 1 Psychological and Brain Sciences, Fairfield University College of Arts and Sciences, Fairfield, Connecticut, USA 2 University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Connecticut, USA Referee Find articles by Elise Bragard 1, 2 Author information Copyright and License information 1 Psychological and Brain Sciences, Fairfield University College of Arts and Sciences, Fairfield, Connecticut, USA 2 University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Connecticut, USA Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Roles Elise Bragard : Referee Copyright: © 2025 Bragard E This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. PMC Copyright notice This data note describes the methods and results of a follow-up questionnaire administered to participants in the ALSPAC (both original mothers and partners, and offspring). This questionnaire focuses on sexual attitudes and sexual regret, and the goal of the current analyses is to highlight intergenerational similarities and differences (overall and by sex) and sex differences. The description of the questionnaire items, instructions, variable names, and coding instructions is extremely clear, and allows for replicability and reproducibility of the study. Descriptive statistics for demographic items and the BSA scale are clearly reported in tables and in the text. Correlations across items/scales are clearly reported overall and by subgroup. Generational and sex differences are highlighted. Study limitations are comprehensive and clearly described. The overall goal of the data note is to support future researchers who wish to use the open-access data for further research and this goal has been achieved. Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others? Yes Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described? Yes Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Yes Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Reviewer Expertise: Developmental psychology, sexual development, sexual victimization, and substance use I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Wellcome Open Res. 2026 Mar 26. Yasmin Iles-Caven Yasmin Iles-Caven 1 Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK Find articles by Yasmin Iles-Caven 1 Author information Copyright and License information 1 Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. PMC Copyright notice We thank you for your comments on our paper. Wellcome Open Res. 2025 Feb 6. doi: 10.21956/wellcomeopenres.25395.r117130 Reviewer response for version 1 Chantal den Daas Chantal den Daas 1 University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK Referee Find articles by Chantal den Daas 1 Author information Copyright and License information 1 University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Roles Chantal den Daas : Referee Copyright: © 2025 den Daas C This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. PMC Copyright notice Thank you for the opportunity to review this data note, which describes data in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Childhood (ALSPAC) collected in 2022 specifically addressing questions around sexual behaviours and associated attitudes, regrets and enjoyment. It is a beautiful cohort, and having multiple generations is a real strength, moreover, having very interesting questions posed in a similar way to other big studies such as Natsal and posed in the same way to both generations, offer a lot of opportunities for research. Below some questions and comments, more than expected but this is because I was interested in the data. Background: Early debut or early activity could benefit from a definition here, what is early, or what is too early? I struck me that the background was slightly negative. In recent years we see that the younger generations delay initiation of sexual intercourse (see for example https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2023.2297906 ). I am not sure the introduction captures  change over time, and difference between generations. Here or in the methods a short description of the context of the cohort could be described, for example what are the common practices for school education for both generations in the majority of schools in the Avon area. Sexual education has shown to have great effects on some of the variables discussed and could have changed over time. Methods: The main information I am missing in this description is whether the data of the generations can be linked. Can researchers see if the answers of the mother and/or the partner of the mother influence the answers of the children. Or is it only possible to look at the data as a type of related cross-sectional populations? The introduction seemed to suggest intergenerational comparisons, but the described is more broad than this. I have always been a bit baffled by the choice (also in other studies) to assess intercourse as a combination of vaginal, oral, and anal intercourse. Since their consequences are so different. For most attitudinal question I don’t think it matters much, but for example for the very first time (F5) it does matter. The enjoyment question was devised to have a positive ending to the section. I am wondering why enjoyment did not get the same treatment as regret. Why these two things were not mirrored. I think it would  have been very interesting (especially in sex positive times) to as about enjoyment in peoples very first time for example. And find out reason for enjoyment as well. I know after the fact there is not much to do about this though. Similarly, it would be interesting to see whether people used alcohol etc in their last time sex, in order to compare this to the first time. This question almost seems to be a ‘blaming question’, you were early because you were disinhibited by alcohol. Order generations are more influenced in sexual decision by alcohol, but I think that could be offset by different cultural norms as well, especially as younger generations seem to drink much less than older generations. Observations: In understand the choice to use sex at birth, it would be interesting to present a little data on where this is different from gender. Table2a I am not sure why these demographics are described, why for example is number of brothers and sisters of G0 interesting? Education level might need a subscript for international readers (I am UK based but A level still means little to me), social class is unclear, is rurality based on postcode or reported. Table2b Total would be helpful, clarify if living with partner is for everyone or those with partner – link to relation status seems non-matching. Hat seems to be missing is for example religion of GO/G1, since this demographic directly links to some of the sexual questions. Where difference are described between sexes or generations or both or those tested, what tests are used for this, and maybe even report the results, to be able to assess effect sizes by the readers, some differences seem more relevant than others. For the correlation tables it would be more helpful to present the meaningful labels, versus the variable names, this way readers don’t have to search what these mean in the key, was not easy to read. You could have them number in the first column and then use the numbers for the first row, to keep it feasible. I would refer to the ‘risky behaviours’ as behaviours, I find this too negative, some of the things just describe what people did (where they met partners), other could be risky but might not be (early debut, drinking while debuting – both could involve condoms, so might not be risky at all). I appreciate this is a description of data, but some of the described behaviours could use a bit of nuance. Especially around the partner numbers. For example, ‘Six-times as many G1 males reported 10 or more partners (3.6%) vs 0.6% of G1 females.’ Is this and gender difference or could this be confounded with sexual orientation, where starkly different norms hold. Around regret, it is unclear whether people regret the actual sex act or whether they regret the consequences (unplanned pregnancy), I think these are 2 very different things, and might have some correlation, but could be independent. Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others? No Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described? Yes Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Yes Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Reviewer Expertise: Health psychology, behaviour in infection prevention, focus on sexual health. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Wellcome Open Res. 2026 Mar 26. Yasmin Iles-Caven Yasmin Iles-Caven 1 Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK Find articles by Yasmin Iles-Caven 1 Author information Copyright and License information 1 Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. PMC Copyright notice Firstly, we thank you for your very helpful critique of the paper and hope this revised version is greatly improved.  In response to your specific comments: Background: Early debut or early activity could benefit from a definition here, what is early, or what is too early? This is not really clear cut internationally and prone to difficulties.  In England, we suggest 16 years (being the legal age of consent for heterosexuals since 1885) as the cut point.  Early debut being those aged <16. We have clarified this in paragraph 1 of the Background. I struck me that the background was slightly negative. In recent years we see that the younger generations delay initiation of sexual intercourse (see for example https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2023.2297906 ).  I am not sure the introduction captures change over time, and difference between generations. We agree this is a little negative. We have extended the Discussion (indicating older age at sexual debut becoming more prevalent; and that sexual experiences can have both positive and negative outcomes). Another paragraph therein briefly summarises why there may be a trend for older age at sexual debut.  Additional references are: de Graaf H, Schouten F, van Dorsselaer S, Költő A, Ball J, Stevens GW, de Looze M. Trends and the gender gap in the reporting of sexual initiation among 15-year-olds: A comparison of 33 European countries. The Journal of Sex Research. 2025; 62(4): 445-454. [Thank you] Golden, R. L., Furman, W., & Collibee, C. (2016). The risks and rewards of sexual debut. Developmental Psychology , 52(11), 1913. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000206 Hawes ZC, Wellings K, Stephenson J.  First heterosexual intercourse in the United Kingdom: a review of the literature. J Sex Res 2010; 47: 137-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490903509399 Twenge JM, Park H. The decline in adult activities among US adolescents, 1976–2016. Child Dev. 2019; 90(2): 638–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12930 Here or in the methods a short description of the context of the cohort could be described, for example what are the common practices for school education for both generations in the majority of schools in the Avon area. Sexual education has shown to have great effects on some of the variables discussed and could have changed over time. Three paragraphs have been added to the end of the Background around school sex education over time in Britain attempting to encompass the decades in which the parents were adolescents. Nothing could be found specifically relating to the county of Avon.  The first of these paragraphs gives the age of parents at delivery and their year of birth. Variables available for school sex education in Years 3 and 6 for the offspring cohort are now reported in Strengths and Limitations. Additional references: Simpson E. Sex Education: Looking to the Past to Inform the Present. History of Education Society 2020. Sex Education: Looking to the Past to Inform the Present - History of Education Society (accessed 06.01.2026) Board of Education Educational Pamphlet no. 119:  Sex education in schools and youth organisations. London: HMSO, 1943 (accessed 05.01.2026). https://education-uk.org/documents/boardofed/1943-sex-ed.html Pilcher J. School sex education: policy and practice in England 1870 to 2000. Sex Educ. 2005; 5(2): 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681810500038848 Sex Education Forum - website Methods: The main information I am missing in this description is whether the data of the generations can be linked. Can researchers see if the answers of the mother and/or the partner of the mother influence the answers of the children. Or is it only possible to look at the data as a type of related cross-sectional populations? The introduction seemed to suggest intergenerational comparisons, but the described is more broad than this. Yes – parent/child information can be linked. This is stated in the Abstract and Strengths and Limitations (inter-generational comparisons). A short sentence has been added to the second paragraph on ALSPAC within the Background section to clarify. I have always been a bit baffled by the choice (also in other studies) to assess intercourse as a combination of vaginal, oral, and anal intercourse. Since their consequences are so different. For most attitudinal question I don’t think it matters much, but for example for the very first time (F5) it does matter. Whilst we agree with this point, ALSPAC had always specified ‘intercourse’ in this manner to align with other studies such as NATSAL. A sentence explaining this has been added to the paragraph immediately after the preamble to Section F under ‘Data Collection in 2022’. The enjoyment question was devised to have a positive ending to the section. I am wondering why enjoyment did not get the same treatment as regret. Why these two things were not mirrored. I think it would  have been very interesting (especially in sex positive times) to as about enjoyment in peoples very first time for example. And find out reason for enjoyment as well. I know after the fact there is not much to do about this though. In retrospect this would have been ideal and indeed very interesting, but limitations of space and funding and having similar data to NATSAL and other studies for comparison resulted in not giving the same emphasis on enjoyment as with regret. Similarly, it would be interesting to see whether people used alcohol etc in their last time sex, in order to compare this to the first time. This question almost seems to be a ‘blaming question’, you were early because you were disinhibited by alcohol. Older generations are more influenced in sexual decision by alcohol, but I think that could be offset by different cultural norms as well, especially as younger generations seem to drink much less than older generations. This is a good point. It is unclear when this shift in patterns of alcohol consumption between generations happened. The 2022 data will allow cross-generational comparisons with alcohol consumption in general, as well as alcohol/drug use prior to sexual debut (Table 7). Previously collected data on the parent (G0) and offspring (G1) generations had a different focus.  For the parent generation the focus was on potential sexual abuse/assault in childhood and then on the quality of their sexual relationship post-delivery and up to 19 years post-partum (see Iles-Caven & Golding, 2024a).  Much more detailed information was collected on the offspring from the age of 11 including various degrees of physical experiences within the previous year (hugging, kissing, touching etc, through to intercourse), with reasons why (in love etc), if they wanted it to happen and if drugs or alcohol had been consumed prior to the experience.  Note these experiences were asked as happening within the previous year and not specifically to sexual debut (Iles-Caven & Golding, 2024b).  For this reason, we collected the data described in this data note.  There are inconsistencies over time in the wording of questions from experiences ‘at sexual debut’ to ‘within the last 12 months’ to ‘the last time you had sex’. Observations: In understand the choice to use sex at birth, it would be interesting to present a little data on where this is different from gender. We use sex assigned at birth for the offspring in order to make direct comparisons with their parents (of which very few were in same sex relationships at enrolment/delivery).  Data on an individual’s reported sexual identity and attraction to the same/opposite sex are available within this paper (Tables 3 and 4), e.g. for those G1 male (assigned at birth) offspring, 94 (6.9%) stated they were homosexual. N.B. A typo in Table 3 has been corrected. In addition, we have added Table 10 which reports on new data collected in the winter of 2022 from the G0 participants only, which became available after this paper was initially published.  This reports on gender identity. Table2a I am not sure why these demographics are described, why for example is number of brothers and sisters of G0 interesting?  Education level might need a subscript for international readers (I am UK based but A level still means little to me), social class is unclear, is rurality based on postcode or reported. We give these fairly basic demographics to show the diversity of the cohort who responded to the 2022 data collection.  We felt noting siblings (older/younger - from which can be ascertained whether the respondent was the eldest), was important as these variables may influence age at sexual debut, sources of information about sex and exposure to siblings’ romantic liaisons – as well as potential confounders such as coming from a large family which may limit parental supervision. Table 2a also indicates that those continuing to participate in ALSPAC are more likely to be White, married at enrolment, and of higher SES and female (as emphasised in Strengths & Limitations). Footnotes have been added to this table explaining social class and education level. Rurality is based on postcode. This has been clarified in the text describing Tables 2a and 2b.  The footnotes are as follows: Table 2a *Public exams, usually in 5–10 subjects, normally undertaken at the end of Year 11 (age 16). Formerly called ‘O’ (Ordinary) Levels, the current equivalent are GCSEs. **Social class was coded using the OPCS jobs scale (I Higher professional/Managerial, II Lower professional/managerial, III Non-manual - skilled; III – Manual – skilled;  IV Manual – partially skilled, V Manual – unskilled) and dichotomized here into non-manual and manual. ***Urban/rural and IMD are based on postcode of the mother’s residence. Table 2b. *GCSEs are national public exams, usually in 5–10 subjects, normally undertaken at the end of Year 11 (age 16), and formerly called ‘O’ (Ordinary) Levels.  ‘A’ (Advanced levels) are usually taken at 18 years and high grades in A levels are required for university entrance Table2b Total would be helpful, clarify if living with partner is for everyone or those with partner – link to relation status seems non-matching . the first question asked if they currently had a partner and if yes, whether they lived with them. This has been clarified within the table. Figures will not necessarily match as not all individuals answered both questions and those completing the YPJ questionnaire (at 29 years) may not have gone on to complete the YPK questionnaire (at 30).  These reported frequencies are of those answering the 2022 questionnaires for whom we have data at 29 years.  This has been added as a note after Table 2b title. Hat seems to be missing is for example religion of GO/G1, since this demographic directly links to some of the sexual questions. The population of Avon at the time of enrolment into the study was predominantly Christian (Church of England).  Only about 7% were Roman Catholic and <1% Muslim. Data have been collected at intervals (including antenatally) on religious beliefs in the G0s, and from the G1 cohort more recently.  This is described in other data notes, listed below. These data were not included in the demographics tables which were not designed to be an exhaustive list of potential confounders.  Whilst many respondents stated they were CofE, further data shows that they were not necessarily practising or even believed in God or a divine being. Iles-Caven Y, Bickerstaffe I, Northstone K and Golding J. Spiritual and religious beliefs and behaviour: data collected from 27/28-year-old offspring in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, 2019-2020. [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. Wellcome Open Res 2024, 6:215 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17153.2 ) Iles-Caven Y, Gregory S and Matthews S. Coding definitions of participant religious, non-religious and spiritual beliefs in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents & Children (ALSPAC). [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. Wellcome Open Res 2023, 8:528 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.20209.1 ) Iles-Caven Y, Gregory S, Bickerstaffe I et al. Parental spiritual and religious beliefs and behaviour data collected from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, 2020 [version 3; peer review: 3 approved]. Wellcome Open Res 2022, 6:175 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17010.3 ) Iles-Caven Y, Gregory S, Northstone K and Golding J. Longitudinal data on parental religious behaviour and beliefs from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. Wellcome Open Res 2019, 4:38 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15127.2 ) Where difference are described between sexes or generations or both or those tested, what tests are used for this, and maybe even report the results, to be able to assess effect sizes by the readers, some differences seem more relevant than others. As a Data Note this is a purely descriptive paper and the only statistical analyses are the correlation coefficients reported in Tables 6a-6e, using STATA 18. For the correlation tables it would be more helpful to present the meaningful labels, versus the variable names, this way readers don’t have to search what these mean in the key, was not easy to read. You could have them number in the first column and then use the numbers for the first row, to keep it feasible. We have altered Tables 6a-6e as you suggested to make them clearer and avoid referring back to the key, which I’ve suggested to the editors could be omitted. I would refer to the ‘risky behaviours’ as behaviours, I find this too negative, some of the things just describe what people did (where they met partners), other could be risky but might not be (early debut, drinking while debuting – both could involve condoms, so might not be risky at all). We altered ‘risky’ behaviours in various ways depending on location/context within the paper to ‘sexual behaviours’, or ‘potentially risky sexual behaviours’ etc. I appreciate this is a description of data, but some of the described behaviours could use a bit of nuance. Especially around the partner numbers. For example, ‘Six-times as many G1 males reported 10 or more partners (3.6%) vs 0.6% of G1 females.’ Is this a gender difference or could this be confounded with sexual orientation, where starkly different norms hold. Good point – However, we do not wish to speculate why this might be and leave it to interested researchers to analyse the data. Around regret, it is unclear whether people regret the actual sex act or whether they regret the consequences (unplanned pregnancy), I think these are 2 very different things, and might have some correlation, but could be independent. We agree with you. It would be difficult to tease apart unless looking at the text responses – some are clearly related to sexual debut (“the first time it was painful”; “I wished I’d known more about what to do”) but many are clearly not or are ambiguous (“it was a violent relationship”). In retrospect, the layout of questions could have been better with a separate reason list for regret at debut vs. lifetime regret.  The following text has been added as a paragraph before Table 9b: Unfortunately, from the available data, it is difficult to ascertain whether respondents regretted the sexual act itself or the consequences of it.  Text responses (Table 9b) are not particularly helpful in this regard, some are clearly concerned with sexual debut (e.g. ‘the first time it was painful’), but others are more ambiguous (e.g. ‘it was a violent relationship’). In retrospect, the layout of the questions could have been much improved with separate tick box lists for regret at debut vs lifetime regret. Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Data Availability Statement Underlying data ALSPAC data access is through a system of managed open access. The steps below highlight how to apply for access to the data included in this paper and all other ALSPAC data. Note that variable names are included in the tables within this paper. Please read the ALSPAC access policy ( http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/alspac/documents/researchers/data-access/ALSPAC_Access_Policy.pdf ) which describes the process of accessing the data and biological samples in detail, and outlines the costs associated with doing so. 1. You may also find it useful to browse our fully searchable research proposals database ( https://proposals.epi.bristol.ac.uk/ ), which lists all research projects that have been approved since April 2011. 2. Please submit your research proposal ( https://proposals.epi.bristol.ac.uk/ ) for consideration by the ALSPAC Executive Committee using the online process. You will receive a response within 10 working days to advise you whether your proposal has been approved. If you have any questions about accessing data, please email: [email protected] (data) or [email protected] (samples). The ALSPAC data management plan ( http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/alspac/documents/researchers/data-access/alspac-data-management-plan.pdf ) describes in detail the policy regarding data sharing, which is through a system of managed open access. Articles from Wellcome Open Research are provided here courtesy of The Wellcome Trust ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (566.2 KB) Cite Collections Permalink PERMALINK Copy RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Cite Copy Download .nbib .nbib Format: AMA APA MLA NLM Add to Collections Create a new collection Add to an existing collection Name your collection * Choose a collection Unable to load your collection due to an error Please try again Add Cancel Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top