Sex study has a surprising result (to Puritans and patriarchal church)

[underpants]

Source: Richmond Times-Dispatch

It says teens who wait more likely to misbehave than those who don't

CHARLOTTESVILLE -- The study was controversial as well as counterintuitive.

It said sex at an early age by teenagers might have some repercussions -- good ones.


The study -- which analyzed data of 534 same-sex twins in the United Stated -- found that teens who had early sex were less likely to engage in delinquent behavior in early adulthood than teenagers who waited to have sex.

Their findings showed that teens who had sex earlier had better relationships later in life. Harden, 25, of Memphis, Tenn., said she wants to investigate further to find out why. She said in future studies, she will look at factors such as types of relationships, whether casual or close, and why and where the sex occurred and the age of the sexual partners.

Harden said she undertook the study because she believed that conventional thinking that early sex by teenagers meant bad behavior later on was incorrect. "I had a hunch that the study would show that the correlation between early sex and delinquency would go away," she said.

She said her hunch was based on her own observations while doing clinical work at U.Va. While adults talk about teenage sex as a bad thing, teenagers don't talk that way, she said.



Read more: http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2007-12-04-0125.html

---

Nice writing there

"counterintuitive" <--- really? to who?

conventional thinking <-- :rofl:

notice also that the age of the researcher accompanies her name. :eyes:

[BreweryYardRat]

1. Well, duh, no shit.

If it's "get laid" or "go out and spray-paint shit," any teenager with two brain cells to rub together is gonna go for option 1.

[Robb]

2. That's what adolescence is for

...a chance to be jerks to one another and royally screw up relationships while everyone's emotional bones are still soft.

No surprise a few messed-up relationships made future ones better (points to self). :)

[Wapsie B]

3. Yeah, 25?

Good lord, she needs to go out and learn a little about the world first. :eyes: Come back to school when you're 30 Kathryn and learned just a bit about the world.

[underpants]

4. Looks like she at least got this right

:bounce:

[davepc]

5. What does the age of the researcher have to do with anything?

If shes a professional, and her work passes peer review, who gives a damn?

[Wapsie B]

8. She's more than a little bit wet behind the ears I'd say.

Not holding her to any different standard that I haven't been held to myself.

[EFerrari]

12. We need a study on scholarship at an early age.

:)

[mqbush]

6. Not a shock

While it might be merely apochryphal, what I'd always
considered common knowledge was that pubescent sex on South
Pacific islands used to be culturally normal, and such
societies had essentially no symptoms of social breakdown. 
After missionaries "enlightened" these people, their
societies came to be nearly as dysfunctional as
"civilized" ones. 

[underpants]

7. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[Yupster]

17. If I can suggest a book "Collapse"

by Jerald Diamond (author of Guns, Germs and Steel," Pacific Island cultures were just full of societal breakdowns long before missionaries came around. I couldn't tell you if early sex had anything to do with it one way or the other though.

[guitar man]

33. yeah, those missionaries and their damn

position.....ruined for them :(


:rofl:

welcome to DU :hi:

[terisan]

9. Biology suggests sex should commence in teen years, peak hormones suggest sex intensity in teen s

for males and 30s for females, culture(ours) wants sex after teen years and wants to deny sex between teen males and 20/30 something females.

DU posters and society in general often want to condemn biologic imperatives. No wonder we are a weirdly sex-obsessed society.

[meow2u3]

11. Ancient cultures had the solution--the kids got married!!!

Whether they were during biblical or otherwise, one common cultural practice was teen marriage; here, the teen sex problem was solved. Only in modern times, when teens were no longer allowed to marry because they're considered children, did teen sex become a problem.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. very true

My great-grandmother married at 16, which was quite common in the 1800s. If memory serves, Andrew Johnson married at age 17.

[happyslug]

40. But people in the 1800s married LATER in life than people in the 1900s

The Census Bureau have taken surveys of people first marriage since 1900. It went DOWN for both sexes till about 1960 and INCREASED for both sexes since 1960. By 1990 the age of first marriage finally was the same as it was in 1890. Various reason for this have been advanced. The most popular was the increase in the number of people in High School and later Collage. It is only by WWII that most males graduate high School (And women were about 10 years later). This increase was followed about 20 years later by increase in people going to Collage. The rationale is that teens meet in High School and started to marry right after High school (Thus the DROP in average first marriages till 1960), until both men and women started to go to Collage, this delayed most people selecting a mate till Collage (Which explains why the Increase age for first marriages since 1970).

In Colonial times the age most people married was in the early 20s. Today, the age of first Marriage is again in the early to mid 20s. A couple which marries at that age has experience in what they expect in a mate, and settle down with one. This was the rule in the Middle Ages and most other times when people picked their own mates. Teen marriages are more popular in societies where the parents pick the mates (And had more to do with maintaining the community united then anything else).

http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/marr-div.html

Median Age of First Marriage, 1890-2000:
http://marriage.about.com/od/statistics/a/medianage.htm

[boricua79]

25. it should never have been a problem

and previous "marriage" practices were based on economic/social structure reasons. Marriages were not about love or sexual attraction...they were based on clanship, financial considerations, politics, social understandings, etc. They dealt with "teen sex" problems the same way the deal with such problems in various Muslim countries or other countries not influenced by Western legal/political traditions: they penalized it with heavy sanctions, such as corporal punishment, mutilation, or even death. The more religiously stringest, the heavier the punishment.

In fact, it was natural for sexual promiscuity to be the norm. The first establishment of single-spouse coupling (the first marriages) arose from laws promulgated by ancient kings to allow for them to have the first "pick" of women in their kingdoms. Kings, as mammal alpha males do, wanted to eliminate the sexual competition of other males in their kingdoms regarding their desire for the best females in their kingdoms. Hence, they passed laws forbidding males from having more than one wife (the introduction of monogamy), and allowing them to have first choice of any females in the kingdom (and in many cases, the laws allowed for the king to have as many as he wished.

Marriage, as an institution, was really the human expression of that primal urge of the alpha male to dominate the females in his surrounding environment. Christians instinctually fear a break down of modern-marriage rules because if this social norm was not strongly enforced, females would naturally attract themselves to many of society's alpha males, to the detriment of the vast number of beta males. Such resentment on the part of beta males could lead to social strife, and breakdown of many social values. Thus, this is why Christians make such a stand on the issue of marriage. For them, breaking down that one man / one woman hierarchy would lead to the acceptance of other sexual arrangements...arrangements that are not governed by self-restraint.

Anyway, I digress a little on the issue of Christian morality and marriage, but the more important thing to note is that marriage itself is not normal or biological. It was the historical product of selfish laws imposed by greedy alpha male kings who wanted the females for themselves.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

54. Not really buying this:

"Christians instinctually fear a break down of modern-marriage rules because if this social norm was not strongly enforced, females would naturally attract themselves to many of society's alpha males, to the detriment of the vast number of beta males. "

That sounds close to polygamy - not something the vast majority of women want.

[shimmergal]

56. Actually, this "history" is at best a theory--

It seems likely that people have always pair-bonded. Not necesssarily either faithfully nor permanently; but it goes back further than the age of "Alpha Male Kings", and is based at least in part on the fact that AT LEAST two adults contributing to a child's care during the long period of immaturity boosts that child's survival chances.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

13. But you bring up a good point

Women don't peak sexually until their 30s (I read the age was 40), and yet it is teenage girls who often feel pressured to have sex. That, to me, shows the cultural bias towards males that so permeates our society. And most males are so immature in their teens-and often well beyond. I waited until I was 38 to marry and was chaste before that--and am very glad I waited until my sexual peak to wed.

[terisan]

16. I wish the Christian fundamentalists would use arguments reflecting that reality. nt

[Yupster]

18. Biology is going for maximum reproduction

Thems are the species that survive.

Have babies quick because a lion might eat you soon. Or you may die of an infected tooth.

I think we better be fighting against biology in this case as biology wants the maximum numbers of humans possible, and we already have six billion of them. How many more can the earth sustain at a decent level of lifestyle? Biology doesn't care. It just wants more.

[xchrom]

20. sigh - having sex no longer means having to have babies.

that paradigm is broken shattered.

even in third world countries where economice have slowly but steadily climbed - people are jumping off of the have twelve kids bandwagon.

now the environment NEEDS for populations to drop more quickly -- and that may happen due to weather.

[boricua79]

you cannot break biological impetus

we may be able to sustain sexual relationships without the desire to procreate, but the biological urges are still the same, and they exist to promote reproduction among the species.

I understand where you are coming from and I agree with your sound, population issue statements, but I disagree that sex is now completely disconnected from biological impetus. It's the reason that some people in society are incapable of sexual stimulation...because they're biological system is faulty in the realm of hormonal responses which stimulate desire. We are creatures of flesh and bone. Why we think we would be any different than monkeys or tigers in terms of mating rituals and activity is beyond me.

[NashVegas]

29. The Biological Imperative Can Easily Be Subverted

By growing up in an abusive environment. Not something I'd recommend, though.

[boricua79]

31. just because you fear sex

because of a past abuse, doesn't mean that the biological impetus was not there or isn't there.

There's also something to be said about psychological damage producing biological results that change body chemistry in that respect.

[NashVegas]

49. I Think Basically

We agree, with some provisos.

What you're thinking is subversion, the "purity vows," aren't necessarily subverting the sex drive; it may even be the opposite: they are acknowledging it exists, they are acknowledging it is important.

Subversion, as I'm using it, is when the desire is so deeply repressed one simply has no true sexual feelings brought on by encounters with an other.

[Odin2005]

36. There is no instinct to procreate, there is an instinct to have sex.

And before people had easy access to birth control having sex resulted in babies. An instinct to reproduce is not evolutionarily necessary and does not really exist in humans.

[happyslug]

44. Madison Avenue will contest that.

While Madison Avenue relies on Sex as much as anything Else to sell things, it factors in the instinct to procreate. The "instinct" to procreate is not like the instinct to have sex, it is a product of various other instinct that taken together leads to procreation. Madison Avenue knows this and relies on it. Leave me give you some comments about this.

When men where shown a serious a pictures of naked women, the one that most men called the sexist was the rear view of a woman holding something. It took them a while, but once said "she was holding a baby" the rest agreed, and still liked what they saw. They would like to have sex with the woman even if that meant taking care of the Kid.

Mothers and Fathers feel protective of their Children, and will try to protect them. That is procreation, not sex in action. Men wanting to be with other men (as a member of a group) is part of "male bonding" but this includes taking care of one's children. Woman's "Desire" to be with a man, has more to do with making sure two can provide for her children then Sexual instinct (Procreation more than Sex).

Now the above can be dismissed as part of Sexual drive. The desire to have sex. The Desire to work with others as a team instead of procreation, but these desires all work together to get people to help their own children and that is procreation. Sex is part of procreation, but only part. Procreation is more then sex, it is more than pairing up with another person, it is more then working with others as a team, all of part of being human, but all are part of procreating. Thus there is an instinct to procreate, it is NOT as overt as the desire to have sex, but it exists. Madison Avenue understands this and a lot of its aids are geared to this. A man with a fast or big car can show he can take care of a woman and her children. A man who wears a suit and tie, shows he has connections and intelligence, and could use them to keep a woman and her children. A woman who has a nice body, can have many children and men desire such women (Yes you can call this sex, but it is sex to reproduce NOT for sex itself). Woman ability to take care of Children is often part of the dating game, to show him she can take care of his children (That is NOT a sexual act but tied in with procreation)

My point is while Sex is on the surface the more important element when a man meets a woman, it is the ability to have a child and making sure that child gets to maturity that is the final factor when two people mate up. People often confuse Sex with procreation, and they are related, but procreation is the more important of the instincts in the long term. It uses sex as part of the bonding of two people, sex gets two people to look to each other of intimacy, but the intimacy is aimed at procreation. This is something Madison Avenue relies on, and Madison Avenue rarely stays with something that does NOT work.

[FiveGoodMen]

45. Experiment with the pictures: did anyone break it down based on whether the subjects were fathers?

[happyslug]

50. From waht I read, it was all unmarried men with no children.

The point was it was part of the male sex drive.

[FiveGoodMen]

51. In my experience, friends changed their priorities radically after having children

That's why I asked.

And I don't think it was simply intellectual -- they seem to turn their 'MUST PROTECT' instinct up about a hundred times and abandon any former beliefs about society and civil rights.

It wouldn't surprise me to find a significant divide along parent/non-parent lines.

You don't happen to have a link for that study, do you?

[happyslug]

53. It has been 20 years since I read that story.

And the details escape me, but that it was playboy centerfolds were the subject matter (And I remember the picture of the girl on the copy of Playboy, naked, with her head turn ot the Camera but all you saw was her back).

[NashVegas]

48. Oh, Boy!

Ever heard of ye olde "biological clock?" I've seen it at work in both sexes.

[boricua79]

27. you cannot break biological impetus

we may be able to sustain sexual relationships without the desire to procreate, but the biological urges are still the same, and they exist to promote reproduction among the species.

I understand where you are coming from and I agree with your sound, population issue statements, but I disagree that sex is now completely disconnected from biological impetus. It's the reason that some people in society are incapable of sexual stimulation...because they're biological system is faulty in the realm of hormonal responses which stimulate desire. We are creatures of flesh and bone. Why we think we would be any different than monkeys or tigers in terms of mating rituals and activity is beyond me.

EDIT

To the Administrators: Please delete the second posting. It was accidental

[xchrom]

28. ok -- you and everyone else

is way more than the sum parts of their biological urges -- that's why populations in europe, japan, the u.s., canada are falling.
see this little thing called the pill changed everything.

more -- the use of the pill is spreading -- well has been spreading for some time.
it's use is growing in china -- will grow more in india -- nobody can afford a bunch of kids in those places now.

aids is forcing greater use of condoms all over the place.

you need to think a little more on a sophisticated level here - it's all changing and changed.
people will always fuck -- any where and just about any way they can.

but they are also excersing the urge not to procreate.

[boricua79]

30. again, the issue is not what science

has uncovered to prevent pregnancies or control normal body functions, what I speak of is the biological impetus to desire sex and want to initiate it, and want to partake in it. that's the biological impetus that "purity" vows and other rituals of sexual denial try to subvert. My point is that you can't.

I'm sure you can prevent yourself from having sex...but only through self-denial. The urges occur...one decides not to act on them. But the occur.

I just find that sad...that one will not allow themselves to be themselves.

I'm all for sexual education and responsible sexual relationships...but I refuse to think that humanity has "outgrown" biological desire and impetus. We NEVER will. It's part of our being.

[xchrom]

32. please read my post carefully.

i said people will always fuck -- what we are no longer subject to is pregnancy.

in fact -- there is evidence to suggest that at imes in human history the outward signs of sexual repression were evident -- the more people fucked -- i.e. the victorian era.

[boricua79]

43. oh...then in that case, I'm in agreement

must not have understood your point.

I agree...the more you repress it, the more you desire it.

People should just accept their urges and go with them, as long as they don't harm anyone involved. If it doesn't, all relations are fair game.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

10. I guess I was the exception

I didn't indulge in either sex or bad behavior when I was a teenager. Really I think the lack of self-control is more a matter of maturity and priorities than anything else. I spent my teenage years working and in study. I learned discipline which has stood by me.

[Yupster]

19. I was with you Ayesha

Spent my time studying, playing sports, getting good degrees so I can get hired for lots of money.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

21. did you feel the pressure to "be popular"?

I know it was there, even in the nerd high school I went to. Luckily, I have never fit the mainstream concept of physical beauty, and was a loner in school. Those two things helped me from getting involved in sexuality in high school. Now, as I look back on things, I actually have some pity for the "popular" girls--the consequences of their actions weren't always good for them.

[kentauros]

22. Popularity was never an issue for those of us in band.

We were just plain weird and we loved it ;)
Most of my friends were intellectuals but crazy enough to want to do wild things. Such as going out to illegal dump sites (usually dead-end roads of failed business parks in the late-70s/early 80s) and helping entropy along with sledge hammers and tossing dishwashers and refrigerators out the back of my dad's truck while going 50mph and recording it all on a friend's stereo boombox :D (I still have that tape, too, over 20 years later...makes for great sound FX excerpts.) I even photographed one such "expedition" and my university photography professor loved the series I made out of it. So even craziness can be a positive thing in school ;)

As for the OP, sex was also not an issue for me (and I'm male.) I was a bit frustrated in college and beyond, but I did have a few married female friends to learn from for what not to do later in married life ;) (It must not have helped enough as I separated with my past-wife a couple of years ago after almost 9 years together...)

[Akoto]

23. Glad I'm not the only one.

I'm a 22 year old male and still haven't. I'm supposed to feel badly, I think, but I don't. It's just not a top priority in my life right now. :shrug:

Plenty happy with my relationships, and in general, I enjoy my life. I've never had any interest in getting married or having kids.

[boricua79]

26. don't...

my advice...enjoy as many sexual relationships as you wish and that you feel occur within the confines of what is comfortable for you. For me, it was ok to have one-night stands when I was younger...but...I understand if that is not good for you.

Get it out of your system.

1) you will become more experienced, to the benefit of your more permanent spouse in the future (she/he will enjoy the fruits of that maturity, as will you)

2) the temptation to cheat will be lessened by your past experiences. It won't be "all that it's cracked up to be".

3) It matures you on a whole host of other issues revolving around romantic relationships in general.

Practice makes perfect. Even my mother, when I was with my first girlfriend, recommended that I "date around". She feared my becoming infatuated with my first girlfriend and marrying the wrong person.

She was right....and I'm glad she gave me that advice.

Do whatever is best for you...and ignore any judgment from others.

[treestar]

38. Many of the girls involved may have been emotionally harmed

Not all, but some. I think you may have "benefitted" at others' expense, and probably did.

As to the problems you state, eh, they're not so bad. If you really believe you'd cheat on your wife just because you'd never been with any other woman, you probably would cheat on your wife anyway.

As to the experience thing, why is scattered experience with many women any better than steady experience with one? Like it's so difficult, too.

Most people are better off restricting a very intimate thing to very intimate relationships. It'd cut down on the number of diseases, too. Nobody ever points it out, but nature would seem to favor fewer intimate contacts on that ground. Our culture has gone overboard to correct Victorian repression ( as our culture is prone to do regarding a lot of things, true).

[boricua79]

47. no...

none of the girls involved were harmed. I never lied to them. I never played "I love you" or "you're the most beautiful girl ever" card. I never deluded about who they were and what my intentions for the future were. I always played it straight and real. They wanted it. I wanted it. It happened. If they were not mature enough to understand their consent, that's THEIR problem.

There is a always a stereotype regarding sexual prowess and promiscuity that always follows men. The myth is always: if you're having a lot of sex, you must have swindled somebody in the process. the other alternative explanation is that women want sex as much as men, and given the right type of situation, environment, and approach, you can seduce and attract them. There's been some people who have written on this (the book, "The Game" speaks about it, though there are others, such as VH1's "Mystery" character, who is considered the best pickup artist in the world).

On top of that, having sex with someone is not about "benefiting" at someone's expense. Nobody is hurt. None of them are irreversible harmed. None of them are sick. They are all, to my knowledge, productive human beings living their lives. They were mature women who engaged in sex and knew what they were doing.

Regarding cheating, you will experience this in your life later in your years. There is a reason why divorce rates are incredibly high in his country, and my theory on it has been that people marry to early and do not give themselves the chance to experience the full palette of sexual opportunies and non-sexual relationship aspects. People need to live. Men, especially, do not mature until later on and have no idea what REALLY drives them. Consequently, they make sexual and marriage decisions that are permanent in nature (or should be permanent) on ideas that later become outdated. I'm glad I never married (though I thought I would with two different girls). Each time, time has proved me wrong in what I wanted and the future has become more focused. I am know with a wonderful woman and i feel completely at peace that she fulfills me in ways that other women in my life never did. I know EXACTLY what I want...I have a better idea now, and she complements it. I believe my impending marriage to her will be a much more solid one because:

1) I made my decision to be with her on a much more sound foundation than past girlfriends who were "marriage material".

2) We will have a healthier sex life, mostly based on my maturity and experience on it. We already do, and I'm glad she can enjoy the fruits of it, because she is such a wonderful human being, that I wish her the most pleasure.

3) I can control my sexual urges and temptations for other women because I know the limits and extent of pleasure that can be derived from "experimentation sex". There's always the seduction of "new territory"...but if one has gone through this several times, the allure is much weaker, and therefore, it aids in keeping faithful. I don't intend to cheat myself, but I can tell you that the urges TO cheat in the past 7 years were a lot worse than now. I credit my sexual history and maturity with allowing me to be able to face this normal human temptation with a much more credible defense. I believe this is a healthier way to deal with it then to apply a fake, religious prohibition on my desires. That never works. It just delays and prolongs the feelings of longing for others.

About steady vs. multiple experiences: I prefer long-term relationships. In fact, I've had 3 long term (4-5 year) relationships. I've also had dozens of short-term relationships (weeks to months). The short-term relationships teach you new things sexually and about who you are and what you want in a women. It allows you to have a very big "filter" about who you want and what will not pass that filter. The long-term relaitonships teach you about your own selfishness and weakness; how to address them, how to become more generous and giving, and to learn to share and co-exist. When you finally do meet the person you're with, the combination knowledge from both types of relationships comes in handy. You're new partner will enjoy someone who knows what it takes to be in a long-term relationships, and also knows how to keep life spicy and fun sexually (the benefits of learning new techniques and new ways of expressing oneself sexually). Unless you're incredibly lucky and you hit the sexual jackpot with your first partner (who happens to be an expert in tantric sexual techniques or something like that), it's unlikely that one partner will know EVERYTHING about how to enjoy sex better. You need several partners...each teaching something new about yourself and about the opposite sex.

Regarding diseases, I've had the most sexual relationships in my circle of 6 or 7 male friends (by far). I've NEVER had a disease. I'm careful about the women I select, and I use protection everytime. Maybe I've just been lucky. I'd like to think I was smart in how I approached relationships.

Finally, nature does NOT favor fewer intimate contacts. In fact, quite the opposite. If we acted upon every sexual urge we had (meaning, we never repressed it), we'd have too many sexual encounters to count. Think of everytime you may have seen a woman and had a desire to have sex with her. At the mall...at a store...in a fitness center, etc. Think that everytime you thought of having sex, it was perfectly ok to walk up to her, pulled down her underwear, and do what you wished. How many sexual encounters would THAT be?

In the animal world, there is no "repression". There is only acceptance or rejection (on the part of the females). The males regularly initiate multiple sexual encounters with multiple partners to maximize the chance of their genes being passed down. The same is with human beings. what gets in the way are

1) socialization (religion, cultural taboos)
2) rejection from females

Eliminate the taboos and eliminate a female's rejection, and you'd have a lot more sex going on than now.

It's perfectly ok to accept our human nature. What should be done is to handle it responsible. I'd like to think that I've been safe, enjoyed my sexuality, and never hurt my partners (emotionally or physically). What could be better than that?

[Lisa]

41. I'm far from being a Bible-thumper, and I dislike how the religious right ...

.... has been so quick to associate abstinence with personal ("born again") virtue. They have made normal sexual curiosity amongst young people seem "sinful" and "perverted", even casting aspersions at sex-ed classes!

I am a liberal secular humanist, an agnostic, and I wasn't sexually active in my youth. In fact, judging by the recent news stories, I've probably had less extramarital sex than most of the leading lights of the GOP! If they presume to tell me that I am not a good person because I'm not Christian -- and because I support godless liberal causes like social justice, equal rights for gay and lesbian couples, and caring for the environment -- by their own standards, they are casting stones at their own glass houses.

[JerseygirlCT]

52. park me here, too. nt

[Javaman]

15. This report will be promptly buried by the religous right. nt

[boricua79]

24. all I know is...

that I'm glad of all the sexual experiences I had early on my college years and early 20s. It taught me many important things about life and I do not regret a single one. It made a lot more mature about relationships, what they take to succeed, and about what I want for myself in life.

I pity the people who have secluded themselves in the name of religion. They're only asking to have those same growing pains in their 30s and 40s. I'm glad I got them out of my way before I'm 30. Now I can actually have a more stable relationship based on a more mature outlook on them.

That...and the mystery's over, so, in terms of "cheating" temptations, I don't have any. Once you've had the forbidden fruit, it doesn't control you as much as before. Guys who are very experienced know of what I speak of. You get a feeling of control and liberation from the knowledge of your past.

[Mountainman]

34. They also have better childhood memories. Ah those were the good old days!

To all the girls I've loved before.
Who traveled in and out my door.

[killbotfactory]

35. If you study history, the puritans were having a lot of teen sex

Abstinence is a stupid policy that doesn't work and only serves to falsely ease the mind of worried parents.

[treestar]

37. Something has got to be wrong here

I don't know whose personal observation wouldn't go counter to this.

What do they mean by "delinquency?" And they are using the word wrong, you can't have delinquency in adulthood, by definition, delinquency refers minors who have committed criminal acts or status violations (things that would not be crimes if adults did them, but are unlawful for minors).

Well you can take one problem - teen pregnancy - and attribute it entirely to the teens who have sex.

As to what they mean by "better" relationships later, someone there is using their own personal definition, which to others might be along the lines of "convenient" and "not too demanding."

[Xithras]

39. I've got a theory as to why this might be.

People who are sexually active while young often learn to separate sexuality from romanticism. They realize there's a difference between having a f**k buddy, or even sleeping with your prom date, and falling forever in love with someone. That's the kind of realization that can only occur after your heart gets broken a few times. These kids may be crushed when their first sexual boy or girlfriend dumps them, or even when they kick the second to the curb, but repetetive breakups within sexual relationships eventually forges a wall between romance and sex.

Abstinent youth do not have a chance to develop this view, and therefore have no separation between sexuality and romance. Every sexually attractive persom they meet has the potential to be "the one", and any relationship that becomes sexual must also become serious.

Those who are sexually active when young, because of this mental separation, learn to choose partners based on their overall qualities, and not simply their sexual attractiveness. Those who are abstinent choose their partners, in my opinion, more on physical sexual attraction than overall qualities. They "want" someone, and in their mind the only way to "have" them is to develop a romantic relationship.

My two pence, anyway.

[happyslug]

42. How accurate is this study? People lie about sex all the time.

94% of all people end up in a member of a "Pair Bond" (One male, one Female). This is considered the only accurate statistic because it does NOT depend on people telling the truth about themselves, all you have to do is see who is living with whom. Once you get away from this statistics you have to rely on people who have good reasons to lie. It may be ego (I had sex when I was 12 for people wanted me) to status (I was a virgin till I was married and NEVER thought about sec till them).

When Polls are taken, most pollster tend to be middle age women, for the Polls have found out people are least willing to LIE to their mothers (and middle age women are more like people mothers then young women). This brings with it its own set of "lies" i.e. will you tell you mother you had sex? or didn't have sex? if what your mother wanted to hear the later? Any study has to consider this, the Kinsey report had a problem, while its initial reports were "sexy" its final observation was boring (Most people had sex only with their spouse). Thus the final report was not issued till the 1990s even through the date had been collected by 1972 (Through as early as 1953 it was concluded that you could NOT have a true random sample, thus the Kinsey report is good for what it is, but the statistics used in it and derived from it are unreliable).

The number of Homosexuals is the classic problem. It is a common belief that the Kinsey Report found 10% of people are Homosexuals, but that goes against another study that found that 94% of people are in paired bonds (Through just because you are in a Paired bond does not mean one member is also NOT having sex with people of the same sex, but such actions do NOT explain the 4 percentage points problem). Kinsey actual report found 34% of men had had homosexual relations. This is questionable, through Kinsey tried to make his report as reliable as possible, even by the mid 1950s it was found to be unreliable. Efforts to correct this were made, but the corrections could NOT solve the problem of the inability to get a true random sample. Thus statisticians dismiss Kinsey's numbers (Through the overall report is considered good, but you can NOT say the numbers he used are accurate).

The reason is that Kinsey started with a bias, having a huge number of his surveyed people being prisoners or male prostitutes, when these are removed, the number seems to hold up, but again the remaining people surveyed were also NOT random (i.e. with the same bias but not listed). This bias was caused by the fact most people do NOT talk about their sex life. The question for Kinsey and other people who study sex is how do you get a random sample when people feel uncomfortable about talking about the subject with a total stranger? If you can get random people to talk about it at all will often lie, both positive and negative depending on what they believe the survey taker wants to hear. Given these two sets of "lies" (Refusal to answer, or if answer give what they believe you want to hear) there is no way to get a random sample of people, and the results are unreliable. The basic problem is there as there is no way to determine who is lying (or what people who refused to say, would say) and thus no way to get reliable data.

All of this Leads to the question is what questions were asked and by whom? What is the error rate? How do the poll taker determine if someone is lying? If the Poll taker says someone is lying, do they mark the opposite answer or just go to the next subject? If you go to the next subject are you excluding people who would give opposite results to what you are finding?

The second set of problems is are people using the same definitions of Sex? If the poll taker understood that to mean intercourse but the person being polled understands that to mean including just flirting with someone of the opposite sex, does that make the result valid? Sexual banter, dancing, kissing, holding hands, going out on the town together etc is even encouraged among the most conservative Religious leaders in this country. It is part of being Human. The line drawn is actual sexual intercourse. If this survey ignored this problem of definitions, the results are invalid IF THE RESULTS SAY TEENS SHOULD HAVE INTERCOURSE, but may be valid that teens should look at each other as sexual beings and treat each other as sexual beings but stopping one step short of intercourse.

One last comment, this is about twins, yet the article did NOT mention any difference between twins. Did one twin have early sex and the other did not? If true, why? If they were in the same household then the difference must be the sex. But such Twin to Twin comparison is NOT mentioned in the article, it is a overview of the whole group. If one sets of twins turn out "all right" and another set of twins do not, that is NOT a valid twin to twin test. In a Twin test you compare a twin that turned out "bad" to one that turned out "good". That is a valid Twin to Twin test (and more valid if it is consistent among most of the twins). My problem such results are NOT made, the results mentioned is only as a group (i.e. it may be one set of twins had sex early and turned out good, another set had sex late and turned out badly, the problem that is NOT a Twin to Twin test but a survey of teens, whose bad or good behavior may be caused by something else in their lives.

I am just pointing out three problems with this study, a study I suspect was influenced by what the 24 year old wanted to find. She then felled into a Trap common to people who wants to find a result, you find want you want to find. The results may be valid, or may not be, but the above three problems must be addressed, and I do not think there can be given people's attitude to sex (i.e. most people do NOT brag about their sex lives), various definitions of Sex (Which I may add from the Article seems to include the kissing, holding hands, dancing etc more than actual sexual intercourse) and that this seems to have been a twin study that did NOT compare twins to twins.

On the Kinsey Report:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_report
http://www.jackinworld.com/library/articles/kinsey.html
http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/

[Orsino]

46. Twins only in study. n/t

[NoodleyAppendage]

55. Poor kid. She's about to encounter career obstacles...

The Christofascists will NOT allow this sort of scientific research to go unanswered (or unpunished). I'm afraid for Ms. Harden's safety and career.

J

[gorbal]

57. This contradicts other studies I have read.

Remember those "teens who wait are happier" studies?

Studies studies studies. I wish I had time to find out who funded them all.