And here's the proof...
Posted on 12/17/2007 4:28:08 AM PST by Kaslin
Could preteen sex actually be a good thing? In what’s being billed as a blow to conventional wisdom, recent news stories have heralded two studies that appear to assert positive benefits to early sexual experience. The Washington Post reported results of an Ohio State University study finding that “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.” Even more recently, ABC News ran a piece with a headline trumpeting “Losing Virginity Later Linked to Sexual Problems,” and a sub-head adding, “Those Who Have Sex Later, Particularly Men, Seem to Experience More Sexual Dysfunction.”
Certainly, the issue of teens and sex has always been a controversial one. But in the past, disagreement focused on whether youths could, in fact, be convinced to remain abstinent; there remained a common assumption that sexual restraint was better for teens and pre-teens than sexual activity. By purporting to suggest that abstinence could actually be affirmatively harmful in certain contexts, these studies represent a radically different challenge to current public consensus about teen sexual activity.
But before Americans begin to reformulate public policy (or rethink plain common sense) based on these results, there are plenty of reasons to be wary. In fact, the authors of the study finding those with a later age of sexual debut experience more sexual problems admit that they found no causal relationship between the two phenomena. In other words, there’s no evidence that waiting to have sex increases the likelihood of sexual dysfunction. Rather, there’s simply a link between the two – which means that it’s just as likely that those who already have sexual problems delay sexual activity in the first place.
As for the study finding that those engaging in consensual teen or pre-teen sex are less likely than their abstinent cohorts to be delinquents, it ignores one important fact right at the outset. Because the age of consent across America is 16 or older, a substantial portion of teen and all pre-teen sex is illegal – and thus constitutes delinquent behavior on its face.
Before teen and pre-teen sex is recast as little more than another recreational activity that will help keep kids out of harm – a slightly more interactive version of midnight basketball, as it were – it’s important to recall that it imposes substantial social costs of its own. Every year, one in four teens is diagnosed with an STD, and the lifetime direct medical costs of just eight of the sexually transmitted diseases contracted by those 15-24 in 2000 alone will total a hefty $6.5 billion. What’s more, it’s been estimated that the cumulative public costs of the teen childbearing between 1991 and 2004 totals $161 billion, even after accounting for factors like race, ethnicity and socioeconomic class.
The individual costs of early sexual activity are likewise substantial. For girls in particular, in addition to the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease, sexual activity also poses substantial emotional and psychological risks. Psychologists have noted that as a result of poor sexual decision-making, girls can experience regret, anxiety, shame, a loss in self-esteem, heartbreak, disappointment and a lifelong inability to trust men. What’s more, one study conducted by the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis found that sexually active girls were three times as likely to suffer from depression as their abstinent peers; another, in the Journal of Preventive Medicine, found that even modest sexual experimentation increases the risk of depression among girls – effectively rebutting claims that depressed girls were more likely to act out sexually in the first place.
Certainly, there’s nothing wrong with conducting research on teen sex and then using it to adjust public policy. What’s dangerous, however, is to allow the results to be misinterpreted, especially by anyone with a preexisting political agenda. It’s worth noting that authors of both studies used them as a predicate for attacking federal abstinence-only programs, a stance reported approvingly in both news stories.
No doubt it’s important to learn what the facts are – whether sexual dysfunction accounts in part for delayed sexual activity, for example, or delayed sexual activity results in dysfunction. But it’s likewise essential to know whether preconceived opinions are driving the research, or whether research will be used to formulate policies that are as consistent with common sense and collective experience as they are with “science.”
As recently as last year, you would have thought any concerted effort to promote sexual activity in early teens and preteens was a ridiculous notion, and could never happen.
This year, we are beginning to see the advance edge of this concerted effort.
By this time next year, it will be old hat.
Yeah, I can see what could come about as a result of 12 year-olds getting pregnant- 35 year old grandmothers. Good grief.
“sex before eight or else it’s too late”?
sounds like justifying the legalisation of pedophilia. wait a few years as more and more of these ‘studies’ are released.
not that they would care about rising teen pregnancy, STD’s AIDS or anything like that - as long as they get to have sex with kids.
Try 25 year old grandmothers. My brother, an OBG, delivered a baby during his residency that had a 25 year old grandmother. He had other 20-something grandmothers.
I’d like to know how they’re defining “sexual dysfunction,” and how it relates to lifestyle issues and other factors besides the age of beginning sexual activity.
A friend of mine works Labor and delivery at Parkland Hospital in Dallas. He has seen 10 year old mothers.
Uh...for this age group, the sex is part of the delinquent behavior.....
Huh. Abstinence must be working if they have to come out with a yeah, but.......
A big thank you to our institutions of higher education and the pedophiles that run them for the direction of our public schools and the moral relativism that pervades this nation.
After all, its only sex; what could go wrong? Is it a shortage of openings at the abortion clinics or is it a shortage of liberal victim voters?
/Dripping sarc./
A perfect example of Nietzsche's transvaluation of all values.
Hmmm, sounds like some profs wnating to get paid for SUPERVISING young ones going at it.
Yes, I was thinking of the same sort of “transvaluation.” Like the University (Columbia?) where they defined “homophobia” as “refusing to engage in homosexual sodomy.”
“Many pre-teen are sexually mature (maybe noy emotionally so).”
Most likely not emotionally so you mean.
“They are not at their sexual peak but they have all the tools.”
Well girls are born with ovaries and boys are born with testes so I guess they do have the tools.
Once they start, it’s hard to get them to stop.
As a former, horny high school teenager, I approve!
And here's the proof...
I guess it really “Takes a Village”. A village of Idiots!
More and more girls are beginning menstruation before the age of 11.
This is unbelievable. Just waiting for NAMBLA to use this.
Yet precisely this is what my ex-liberal girlfriend believed. No wonder she's was such a trainwreck.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.