NationStates Jolt Archive

From the Washington Post:

Researchers at Ohio State University garnered little attention in February when they found that youngsters who lose their virginity earlier than their peers are more likely to become juvenile delinquents. So obvious and well established was the contribution of early sex to later delinquency that the idea was already part of the required curriculum for federal "abstinence only" programs.

There was just one problem: It is probably not true. Other things being equal, a more probing study has found, youngsters who have consensual sex in their early-teen or even preteen years are, if anything, less likely to engage in delinquent behavior later on.
(Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/10/AR2007111001271.html)

The very first paragraph of this article is particularly telling, to me, because it highlights the way that the media handles science. How sad when the popular narative doesn't quite fit with scientific data.

Gee...who'd thunk it... consensual sexual relations between teens doesn't automatically set them up to be delinquents any more than their peers. there goes popular myth and the entire basis for "abstinence only" education. Aw shucks... I guess keepin' 'em in the dark ain't gonna work any more.

Well, what do you expect?

It's inevitable that some journalists are going to think that years and years of education gave them the insight to conclude what scientists spend years and years researching on. When that happens, scientific data gets twisted in their favour and the only people who aren't left to wander astray are the scientists, who know how to get their hands on raw original scientific data (and everyone else who can do that, for that matter).

It's inevitable, because some journalists are going to think that they're wittier than they really are, when they see their fellows doing the same.

(I can't quite seem to put it across that journalists can be smart and stupid and that when a stupid journalists thinks he knows something, he also has the ability to spread his stupidity).

If I got gonorrhea early on, I might be more careful in the future too. ;)

I didn't know this view was popular.

Researchers at Ohio State University garnered little attention in February when they found that youngsters who lose their virginity earlier than their peers are more likely to become juvenile delinquents. So obvious and well established was the contribution of early sex to later delinquency that the idea was already part of the required curriculum for federal "abstinence only" programs.

There was just one problem: It is probably not true.
Making it any different than any other part of "abstinence only" curriculum in what way?

I'm so....not surprised. It seems par for the course. I suppose I'm just being paranoid by thinking this might have some connection the concept of controlling sexuality in general and feminine sexuality in particuliar.

Making it any different than any other part of "abstinence only" curriculum in what way?

hey, its not entirely false. there are, in fact, several different biological sexes that exist, for example.

I'm so....not surprised. It seems par for the course. I suppose I'm just being paranoid by thinking this might have some connection the concept of controlling sexuality in general and feminine sexuality in particuliar.

This falls into: it might be fun, therefore we must restrict access mentality. :D

As usual, Church tries to rape State and conservatives go "yes, yes, oh God yes, screw science".

Wait, people thought that earlier sex results in delinquency? I would have thought that if I was going to pull a link between the two out of nowhere it would be the other way around.

Making it any different than any other part of "abstinence only" curriculum in what way?

I only got that whole "abstinence only" bit before I turned thirteen. After thirteen we got the whole "don't be a fucking retard, use a condom" approach. Oh, and the "anyone who ever claims that they're too big for a condom is a liar and deserves to be slapped." Oh, and the "creepy, short, fat old woman putting a condom all the way over her scraggly witch-hands." That was probably the most effective tactic of all: It killed my libido for an entire year and a half.

From the Washington Post:


(Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/10/AR2007111001271.html)

The very first paragraph of this article is particularly telling, to me, because it highlights the way that the media handles science. How sad when the popular narative doesn't quite fit with scientific data.

I love karma.

Wait, people thought that earlier sex results in delinquency? I would have thought that if I was going to pull a link between the two out of nowhere it would be the other way around.
The idea is that Sex Is Bad, Mkay? Obviously only bad, slutty kids have sex, and bad, slutty kids also are going to be deliquent kids. If a good, nice kid has sex, the sex will immediately turn them into a bad, slutty kid, and they'll be out stealing hubcaps by dawn.

It's difficult to be a troublemaker when you're sexually exhausted. Believe me. :p

In before religious nuts try to redefine delinquency so that having sex outside marriage == delinquency

In before religious nuts try to redefine delinquency so that having sex outside marriage == delinquency

That would depend who/what you're having sex with.

A teenaged sexual experience with another caring person =/= delinquency.

Humping a plastic Ronald McDonald at 3:30 am == delinquency.


<.<

>.>


...Believe me. :)

That would depend who/what you're having sex with.

A teenaged sexual experience with another caring person =/= delinquency.

Humping a plastic Ronald McDonald at 3:30 am == delinquency.


<.<

>.>


...Believe me. :)

If Ronald consented then you two can hump to your hearts content.

If Ronald consented then you two can hump to your hearts content.

His eyes said 'yes'. *nod*

His eyes said 'yes'. *nod*

Awwww, young love, between a boy and a hollow plastic statue.

Awwww, young love, between a boy and a hollow plastic statue.

He never returned my phonecalls. :(

He never returned my phonecalls. :(
:(
It's not too bad. Ronald's life hasn't been great these days. At least, not according to JDatE.
It's that patriarchy thingie. Can't sell damaged goods, so no premarital sex for my daughter! Meh.

'Until you get married, your vajayjay belongs to me!'

It's that patriarchy thingie. Can't sell damaged goods, so no premarital sex for my daughter! Meh.

>>There was just one problem: It is probably not true. <<

Sorry, but the journalist who wrote the article blew it. Totally botched the analysis. There IS a link, and the study confirmed it. The only change is that the study shows that it is NOT a Cause-Effect link, it is a Common-Cause link. (DNA)

Key line:

"Together, those findings suggest that some genes -- perhaps, for example, those that increase impulsivity and risk-taking -- may underlie both behaviors."

Getting into some real hot water areas, the article also claims a strong Genetics-IQ connection. And you know what happens to scientists who find that.

>>There was just one problem: It is probably not true. <<

Sorry, but the journalist who wrote the article blew it. Totally botched the analysis. There IS a link, and the study confirmed it. The only change is that the study shows that it is NOT a Cause-Effect link, it is a Common-Cause link. (DNA)

Key line:

"Together, those findings suggest that some genes -- perhaps, for example, those that increase impulsivity and risk-taking -- may underlie both behaviors."

So the journalist was right. The original claims were untrue, based on the newer findings. Not seeing how they "blew it" in that regard.


Getting into some real hot water areas, the article also claims a strong Genetics-IQ connection. And you know what happens to scientists who find that.
Um...nothing. There is a genetics-IQ connection. We've known that for a very long time.

The idea is that Sex Is Bad, Mkay? Obviously only bad, slutty kids have sex, and bad, slutty kids also are going to be deliquent kids. If a good, nice kid has sex, the sex will immediately turn them into a bad, slutty kid, and they'll be out stealing hubcaps by dawn.

And if you have sex, you're automatically in al-Qaeda. Don't forget that.

Has anyone in the religious right ever thought of how much sexual frustration and repression contributes to delinquincy?

I mean, if all that hormonal energy isn't used on sex, than it's got to go somewhere...

Fundamentalists have never been ones to let a few facts get in their way.

"Screw science, GOD says sex is bad! Oh, well, he doesn't say that exactly, but, um... if you look at this translation... er... well someone once told me there was a bit in Leviticus about gays and fornication and whatnot, and it's all very bad!"