Study says early sex does not make fo...

Study says early sex does not make for bad kids

There are 31 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Nov 12, 2007, titled Study says early sex does not make for bad kids. In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Then again

Lincolnshire, IL

#1 Nov 12, 2007
"It found that identical twins, who have the same DNA, were more similar to one another in the ages at which they lost their virginity than were fraternal twins, whose DNA patterns are only 50 percent the same -- an indication that genes influence the age at which a person will first have sex."

The implicated genes might just as well affect physical beauty as risk-taking behavior.
Tina

Melrose Park, IL

#3 Nov 12, 2007
"Poor teen moms are actually more likely to breast feed than poor older moms."

Wow, that's news to me. I see the complete opposite with the young moms in our Early Head Start program. In the five years I've been working here, not one of our teen moms breastfed her baby.
MN PhD

New York, NY

#4 Nov 12, 2007
Don't be fooled!
It is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to find a 'cause' for a behavior. Despite what "behavioral geneticists" claim, there are NO single genes which cause any type of behavior. Just because they have a fancy name doesn't mean that they are any closer than most psychiatrists are to figuring out what makes people tick.
x Chicagoan

Georgetown, TX

#5 Nov 12, 2007
This piece of Trash article should be retracted at the very least.Horrible information for teens who if reading will have one less reason to have sex at a young age. Liberal piece of trash.
Crap

Chicago, IL

#6 Nov 12, 2007
This is a crap study. They are trying to tell us that children having sex is ok. Why don't they tell us about their kids. They are not letting their children have sex. There is no socially significant purpose to this study.
jbarth

Elmhurst, IL

#7 Nov 12, 2007
Six times the writer uses a form of “lose their virginity.”

What century is this?

Do they also “lose their shortness” when they get tall?

Do children “lose their stationariness” when the take their first steps?

Do they “lose their inexperience” when they work their first job?

We can so deftly turn language upside down and backward to shield ourselves from our fears.

Irving Berlin wrote:“I got lost in his arms ... and look what I found!”
Jude

Los Angeles, CA

#8 Nov 12, 2007
Very interesting. I raised identical twin girls who turned out quite well, with no delinquency and waited to marry and have children until their 30's, so studies using twins always interest me as I have seen the correlation with twins close-up.. As for abstinence programs, I think spending great amounts of money on them is probably a waste; although I think sex education programs with abstinence suggested as desirable is fine; but kids need to know how to prevent pregnancy and disease if they are sexually active--and that should be the number one goal.
JollyRoger

United States

#9 Nov 12, 2007
Well here come the right wingers, moralists and evangelicals to tell us all how bad this is. "This piece of Trash article..." is a reevaluation or existing data. What scares you people so badly? The fact that some parent may be able to talk openly with their children about sex or that they may not be scared into blindly following some puritanical ideals of your choosing.
As far as a teen reading this particular article or the related study and data; my teen wouldn't care less even if it was the only thing on her iPod.
Chris Stevens

Peoria, IL

#10 Nov 12, 2007
Once again an example of how 'conventional wisdom' really is a load of crap manipulated by politicians and preachers alike.
Chris Stevens

Peoria, IL

#11 Nov 12, 2007
To Tina, one of the reasons 'conventional wisdom' perseveres is folks like you.

You want to extrapolate your personal, non-scientific, non-verifiable, belief system for facts.

I'm not saying your wrong, or even trying to manipulate the information, only that you can't 'prove' your opinion like scientists who have to be able to replicate their findings.

So what that means is since you believe it, for you it is truth. And remember, there is no ABSOLUTE Truth, since truth is simply the interpretation of facts.
mowog

Wheeling, IL

#12 Nov 12, 2007
Thank God someone is working on this area of major concern.
Mike

Indianapolis, IN

#15 Nov 12, 2007
This study is JUNK aimed at UNDERMINING abstinence programs.

If it seems like common sense to the rest of us, there are LIBERALS somewhere looking to bring out the DEBASING FILTH.

What's next? Living with STD's isn't as hard on teens as we used to think?? LOL!

Priceless.
Tina

Melrose Park, IL

#16 Nov 12, 2007
Chris Stevens wrote:
To Tina, one of the reasons 'conventional wisdom' perseveres is folks like you.
You want to extrapolate your personal, non-scientific, non-verifiable, belief system for facts.
I'm not saying your wrong, or even trying to manipulate the information, only that you can't 'prove' your opinion like scientists who have to be able to replicate their findings.
So what that means is since you believe it, for you it is truth. And remember, there is no ABSOLUTE Truth, since truth is simply the interpretation of facts.
What did I say that called for this response??? All I said was that from what *I* had seen at *my* workplace differed from what the article said. I in no way insinuated that what I had seen was "the truth." That's all--I just happened to find the result suprising because I work with poor teen moms, and it had NOTHING to do with the bigger picture of whether the article was scientifically sound. Jeez!!
Illinois Resident

Union, IL

#17 Nov 12, 2007
Researchers at Ohio State University, don't have anything real important to do. Sure wasn't working with their football team.
Russell

Albuquerque, NM

#18 Nov 12, 2007
"This piece of Trash article should be retracted at the very least.Horrible information for teens who if reading will have one less reason to have sex at a young age. Liberal piece of trash."

It seems that the poster would favor telling lies to elicit desired behavior and that truth is not important. Why am I not surprised?

The poster is also more interested in whether something is liberal or conservative than in whether it is the truth. Is honesty important only when it supports one's own viewpoint?
chigal

United States

#19 Nov 12, 2007
There was a show on PBS recently about teens and preteens in Africa who are given away in marriage too young, whose bodies pay a severe price in childbirth: fistulas, incontinence, permanent damage, numerous surgeries to repair the damage, etc. I don't doubt American teens and preteens face similar risks.

I don't think preaching abstinence is the solution; rather, the answer is to teach young people about their bodies and help them understand what sex is, how their bodies work and how to be healthy.

It's no surprise that the abstinence people equate delinquent behavior with teen sex, going so far as to assert a cause/effect scenario. They're all about shame and denial, instead of the healthy approach to troubled teens, which is the sharing of scientific knowledge (EDUCATION in schools ... what a wild idea!) and support without shame.

“Here I am”

Since: Nov 07

Scottsdale, AZ

#20 Nov 12, 2007
Define early- I first masterbated at 14 and had sex at 15. Is that young? I hung out with older girls when I was 16-17 and they were all having plenty of sex. As for me, I don't think I grew up wrong-
Ms_Virginity

Chicago, IL

#24 Nov 19, 2007
i agree with this because yes i am still a virgin and yes i might be thinking about havig sex,soon. i get As and Bs and school and i dont have a record i dont even remeber getting a detention. if i decide to have sex i wont change the only thing that will change is my title as "ms.virginity". when peolpe hear that you lost your virginity at a young age they instntly think HOE but thats not the case. it may be avery big choice at 14 but im willing to take te risk. i have already been taught the precautions by my parents and at school.

Since: Oct 07

Blue Earth, MN

#25 Nov 19, 2007
And the pedophiles of the world rejoice.

Anybody taking bets about how long it takes NAMBLA to pick up on this?

Since: Oct 07

Blue Earth, MN

#26 Nov 19, 2007
WildStacy wrote:
Define early- I first masterbated at 14 and had sex at 15. Is that young? I hung out with older girls when I was 16-17 and they were all having plenty of sex. As for me, I don't think I grew up wrong-
Aren't you the one who was shagging the 32 year old when you were 15? I think I read that on another thread.

In that case--I'm only 31. Do you have a daughter?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Garrison Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
923 Second Street in "The good ol' days"! (Oct '13) 17 hr MJones 4
Elliot Rodger RIP (Jun '14) Jul 1 lawmao 13
North Miller st? Is this one of newburghs worst st (Oct '06) Jun 29 Jules 297
Adoptees Born at Julia L. Butterfield Hospital ... (Jan '12) Jun 28 joanNYadoptees 42
07/21/1978 Beacon ny Adoptee looking for biolo... Jun 27 joanNYadoptees 1
News Gordon Lightfoot Returns to Stanley Theater in ... Jun 25 Great News 1
News Police seek suspects in stabbing of Yorktown gi... (Sep '06) Jun 23 TeachLove 68
More from around the web

Garrison People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Garrison Mortgages