Saturday, March 15, 2008
Does sex earlier in life reduce delinquency?
My sister the biologist looks at two papers that consider whether an earlier age of first intercourse affects subsequent delinquency. The one that purports to show that earlier sex results in less delinquency is actually the better paper.
What does it mean that the second study found that identical twins who have their first sexual experience earlier than their siblings are less likely to engage in delinquent behavior? The authors seem to feel they have no choice but to conclude that there is probably no relationship between these factors at all... Either that, or delinquency is caused by sexual frustration, and the problem of misbehaving teens is now solved.
It is tough being a conservative with all these social scientists running around.
17 Comments:
By 
, at
Sat Mar 15, 05:42:00 PM:
Well, as the Tiger-Sis points out, the studies ignore so many factors.
Early sex among blacks couldn't have anything to do with the fact that 50% of girls aged 14-18 who're black have STDs ...
As a father with a daughter, I plan to teach her that young men will pork a frozen turkey assuming two things (among others): one, that no one finds out, and two, that they can get their rocks off.
Whether younger folks have sex is based on many factors, but whether it leads to being delinquent later, I just can't say.
By analogy ... I smoked two pounds of weed, and shockingly, it didn't lead to insanity, a life of crime or a heroin addiction, so go figure.
By 
Larry Sheldon, at
Sat Mar 15, 07:37:00 PM:
I guess I am hopelessly conservative, since I hold that early sex is delinquency.
And proof of irresponsible parenting.
By , at
Sat Mar 15, 08:20:00 PM:
This is a statistical study. Here are a few things to remember, always:
1. correlation does not equal causation.
2. the way the study was constructed probably is simple-minded and faulty, i.e., it doesn't control for other possible factors.
3. the statistical model used may be inappropriate. You can run numbers through a statistical model and, usually, get an answer. That doesn't mean the output is anywhere near being a relevant answer.
By , at
Sat Mar 15, 09:37:00 PM:
"What does it mean that the second study found that identical twins who have their first sexual experience earlier than their siblings are less likely to engage in delinquent behavior?"
It means they didn't include the Olsen twins in their statistical sampling.
By , at
Sat Mar 15, 09:55:00 PM:
I happen to be an identical twin whose brother dipped his wick well before I did. He is decidedly more delinquent.
By Wince, at
Sat Mar 15, 11:16:00 PM:
Delinquency is measured by who gets caught. Stupid people tend to get caught.
Any chance that those clever enough and with the social skills to talk a girl into sex may have the better ability to talk themselves out of trouble or avoid capture in the first place?
By , at
Sun Mar 16, 12:55:00 AM:
The Religious Right's war on sex is, at its core, no different than Islamofascists forcing women to wear burkhas in public. Ridiculous social policy rooted in insane religious dogma, harmful to society in every way and maddening to anybody with a speck of common sense.
TH, your sister might know more about this, but I remember hearing/reading that the average age of menarche has decline significantly in the past century and a half. The group for which it's lowest? African-Americans.
By , at
Sun Mar 16, 01:52:00 AM:
Anonymous of 09:37 overlooked that the Olsen twins are fraternal twins, not identical twins.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Sun Mar 16, 08:18:00 AM:
Well, Anonymous 12:55 got his rocks off anyway.
By M. Simon, at
Sun Mar 16, 08:45:00 AM:
Wait 'til you find the main cause of promiscuity:
Demographics
BTW the above is old news. We have known since Biblical times that when there are not enough men - girls go wild. And the girls behavior is not changed by severe admonition. Thus the complaints.
By M. Simon, at
Sun Mar 16, 08:47:00 AM:
And BTW can I microwave the turkey first? I have my limits.
By Jay Manifold, at
Sun Mar 16, 08:55:00 AM:
The Religious Right's war on sex is, at its core, no different than Islamofascists forcing women to wear burkhas in public. Ridiculous social policy rooted in insane religious dogma, harmful to society in every way and maddening to anybody with a speck of common sense.
That explains all those young women being beaten by religious police on the streets of America's cities, the public stonings of adulterous women, and the refusal of all 50 states' Departments of Motor Vehicles to issue drivers' licenses to females.
By , at
Sun Mar 16, 11:43:00 AM:
"EDH, at Sat Mar 15, 11:16:00 PM
The Religious Right's war on sex is, at its core, no different than Islamofascists forcing women to wear burkhas in public. Ridiculous social policy rooted in insane religious dogma, harmful to society in every way and maddening to anybody with a speck of common sense..."
Not to say there is or should be a war on sex, but you really don't think there's a profound difference with thinking that kids shouldn't have sex too early (or until marriage) and women should, by force of law, cover their entire bodies while in public? Among the many difference between the two, do you remember the last time a young girl got pregnant or infected with VD because a guy looked at her bare face?
By , at
Sun Mar 16, 12:17:00 PM:
This whole line of discussion leads to the inevitable "And now what?"
What do we do with this information.?
Modify sex education in high school?
Grade school?
As if some middle-aged teacher "talking about it" with teens and pre-teens is going to have a more profound effect than the constant pop-culture effects and peer influence?
Did somebody get government money to do a government funded study to then follow-up with "important legislation" using lots of government money to fix this problem, with "pre-teen sexual intervention"?
Another case of the education/academic/government- industrial complex looking for another way to pry into your life and influence the raising your kids.
No thanks.
-David
By , at
Sun Mar 16, 03:19:00 PM:
It's degrees of insanity when you talk about not allowing women to drive vs. abstinence-only education, but make no mistake, it's rooted in the same unjustifiable delusions.
Regardless of what axe you're grinding with this particular cause, you're only hurting yourself at the end of the day, because it's your tax dollars going to support a generation (or generations) of children whose parent's can't (or won't) properly care for them. But by all means keep on with it if it'll make you feel better when the next unwanted child steals your car stereo.
By , at
Sun Mar 16, 04:02:00 PM:
Teenagers have been having sex with each other since the beginning of time. So what?
Linking early sexual exposure to overall patterns of behavior is, to me, absurd. Everyone is different, and everyone comes from a different sub-culture.
How about religious recluses, whose women marry and have sex by the early and mid teens but, because they're religious recluses, don't sell drugs or vandalize buildings? How about Los Angeles gang-bangers who shoot up a rival gang to be accepted into their group, and are then rewarded by access to the gang's 'morale girls?' Does 'bad' behavior impress women in your home, or drive them away? How much control do parents have over their children and how do they exercise it?
Or do we just not count these situations because it messes up our statistics? Or do statistics even exist? (I bet they don't)
If there's a sociological link at all, I'd rate it as boredom. Would you rather go out with a girl, or would you rather go bust up some mail boxes or pick a fight? If there aren't any girls around, what dissuades from the latter choice? I hear China has such a problem now with legions of pissed off and sexually frustrated young men, because of the one child policy and a cultural preference for boy children.
By , at
Sun Mar 16, 09:47:00 PM:
C'mon, baby, let me get to second base...you don't want me to end up in juvie, do ya?
