Failing Class? Have More Sex!
That’s what I thought this AP article (via HotAir), with the ridiculous headline “Teen Sex Not Always Bad for School Performance,” was about.
Actually, it’s nothing quite that eyebrow raising. According to “a provocative new study,” as the article put it, teens having sex “in committed relationships do no better or worse in school than those who don’t have sex.” The study was released yesterday at a meeting of the American Sociological Association in Atlanta.
Meanwhile, teens who “hook up”—who engage in casual sex outside of a romantic relationship—tend to get lower grades and “have more school-related problems compared with those who abstain.”
Are these findings really provocative? They strike me as common sense. Obviously, a teen in a committed relationship has to feel more emotional security and confidence than a teen who “hooks up” with a new person each time the opportunity presents itself, a regrettable habit often coupled with excessive alcohol intake, and which results in (or is caused by?) emotional instability and anxiety. That’s a heavy load to bear as you enter your biology classroom for your final exam.
The article did raise one interesting point. It's not the sex itself that determines academic and even emotional health and success, but the type of sexual relationship you're in.
So should sex-ed classes focus on the importance of relationships and highlight the negative consequences of hooking up? The study mentioned above, after all, isn't the only one that cites how harmful casual sex/hooking up is.
As they are right now, sex-ed classes teach students about anatomy, and tubes, and STDs, but nothing beyond the physical mechanics and consequences of sexual intercourse--there's nothing about how to emotionally or morally handle and moderate sex.
I know some Ricocheters may oppose the idea of "sexual education," but I think that sex-ed is here to stay, at least in the short run--so I wonder what the least harmful type of sex-ed would be. What do you think?
Another question for the Ricochet parents--does the fact that your teens may be having sex worry you because it might affect their academic performance, or does it worry you for other reasons, like emotional or moral ones?
- Comment (19)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: Failing Class? Have More Sex!
Emily Esfahani Smith: teens having sex “in committed relationships do no better or worse in school than those who don’t have sex.”
OK, and what happens once the relationship's over?
Every "relationship" except marriage is pretty much by definition not permanent (and let's be honest, even marriage isn't that permanent anymore).
While a "committed relationship" lasts, sure everything's fine, all rainbow and roses, but once it's over... Crash and burn. Especially when there's sex.
Sex is supposed to create a powerful biochemical bond between partners, a bond that is supposed to hurt like hell to break. Each ending of a "committed sexual relationship" is a miniature divorce.
I went to a college famous for its suicides. What most people don't know is that it's not academic pressure that drives these suicides so much as broken love affairs. I cannot decently relate here how much I have seen women suffer -- emotionally and with regards to their productivity -- from the inevitable end of most "committed relationships".
Did the study measure the success of teens whose "committed sexual relationships" have ended, or did it conveniently overlook that inevitable aspect?
Re: Failing Class? Have More Sex!
What you say is all true, Midget, every word, but 'tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all--and I suspect the campaigner who tries to put an end to young love has something of an uphill battle ahead of him.
Aug '10
Re: Failing Class? Have More Sex!
Strictly from a game-theoretic perspective (i.e, morals aside), my advice to my unborn daughters:
Take care of yourself first. Date when you're ready for it, i.e, not too early, but don't hold off looking for a spouse (which is still for most of us the ultimate purpose of dating) till you're nearly menopausal, either.
Realize that dating is a game, and that when you enter "committed sexual relationships" that aren't marriage, you're losing the opportunity to freely meet other guys and figure out what's ultimately right for you before menopause hits.
So if "committed sexual relationships" are out, that leaves nonsexual long-term friendship and casual dating. Most women aren't cut out for casual sex, meaning casual dating without sex is the way to go. So...
Remain a virgin for as long as possible before marriage. (Most of us, when we've said yes once, have an astronomically harder time saying no after that, even when we want to. I've seen this happen to my friends!)
The power of women to say no to sex is what equalizes men and women in dating.
Virginity = power.
Saying no = power.
Aug '10
Re: Failing Class? Have More Sex!
In other words, dating is a game of poker, and the woman who says no to sex gets to force the man's hand:
He's either going to decide he doesn't want you that badly anyhow, in which case it's over and you're free to move on to other relationships. Or he'll decided that he wants you badly enough to pursue you anyway.
Since it's the biological tendency of men to stray more than women, I believe that it's especially important for a woman to hold out for a man who wants her badly enough to not just give up when she isn't giving him sex yet.
Men need a challenge. We've got to give it to them.
(Yeah, I feel pretty strongly on this subject. Sorry for the logorrhea.)
Re: Failing Class? Have More Sex!
Midget, like Claire, I agree that what you say makes perfect sense. The fact that the study doesn't account for breaking up is a pretty serious omission!
What I don't understand is why young women don't play the poker game. Young women today think exactly the opposite of what you say. They don't think that being a virgin (or at least holding off sex for as long as possible) gives them power. They think that having lots and lots of casual sex gives them some sort of power over men. They think that by having casual sex, and making then breaking that strong emotional and biochemical bond, that they somehow defy nature and become unfeeling superwomen. To admit that sex makes them emotionally and physically vulnerable would be a sign of weakness.
Jun '10
Re: Failing Class? Have More Sex!
and "old" love for that matter! Talk about where Angels fear to tread... There is a fine line between being experienced and being jaded, and only experience allows you to tow it.
May '10
Re: Failing Class? Have More Sex!
Do all good, non-promiscuous guys marry young, thus making it impossible to meet decent people after 30?
Jun '10
Re: Failing Class? Have More Sex!
Emily Esfahani Smith
I know some Ricocheters may oppose the idea of "sexual education," but I think that sex-ed is here to stay, at least in the short run--so I wonder what the least harmful type of sex-ed would be. What do you think?
Ahhh, this is tricky. In this moment, the data suggests that hooking up is worse than having sex in a committed relationship. So, if we make the choice to "promote the latest research to public sexual education students" - what happens when the latest data suggests things we are severely opposed to?
Remember the "abstinence" study? Where only 1 out of 3 of the students taught abstinence had sex from the age of 12-14, while 1 in 2 students taught "safe sex" had sex from 12-14.
http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/164/2/152?home
Still, 1 in 3 12-14 year-olds had sex either way. How can _schools_ teach to counter THAT?
Aug '10
Re: Failing Class? Have More Sex!
Duane Oyen: Do all good, non-promiscuous guys marry young, thus making it impossible to meet decent people after 30? · Aug 16 at 10:21am
Heck no! What makes it harder for a woman to meet a good man after she's thirty is mainly her age -- she's getting closer to menopause --but even then it's far from impossible.
My husband is an unusually decent man, and he was more than a little over 30 when we met. He had had a few sexual relationships in his past, but Id' say he was far from promiscuous. And what was important to me is that he was willing to honor my commitment to remaining a virgin till the wedding night (I barely pulled that one off, but I did it) without cheating on me.
It's true, however, that older people have had the opportunity to accumulate more emotional baggage. And that a woman who hasn't found her mate when she's still at her "Darwinian peak", so to speak, may have to widen her search -- consider marrying someone much older, a little younger, not as "handsome" as she had hoped, etc.
Aug '10
Re: Failing Class? Have More Sex!
Emily Esfahani Smith: What I don't understand is why young women don't play the poker game. Young women today think exactly the opposite... They think that having lots and lots of casual sex gives them some sort of power over men...
My generation (I'm in my 20s) was taught that there aren't significant differences between men and women, that the emotional and social differences between the sexes, which no-one can ignore, are socially constructed, and not innate.
We're not taught to think, "Men's biology makes them physically stronger, more aggressive, and fertile indefinitely. Women are physically weaker, less aggressive, and fertile only till menopause. Maybe that influences, or should influence, our mating behavior."
We're not taught to think that way because we're taught to think that ideally, piddling biological accidents like "gender" shouldn't matter. And since they shouldn't matter, let's pretend they don't.
Young women raised this way don't feel permitted to suspect that what makes a woman a powerful woman might be different from what makes a man a powerful man. So they try to become powerful women by imitating powerful men. And it fails.
Jun '10
Re: Failing Class? Have More Sex!
To answer the question, I would prefer my daughter get failing grades than engage in premarital sex. I wasn't perfect, but I waited for marriage and I will teach her and her brothers the same thing. There is absolutely no lasting benefit to sex outside of a long term committed relationship, which by definition would be marriage. It teaches nothing, while abstinence teaches self-control, discernment, strength and many other things. I wasn't married until my mid-thirties and the pain and suffering of abstinence was worth it.
This study sounds very narrow. What do these studies do for us, anyway? If someone produced a peer reviewed study that skinning cats by the light of the moon produced children who would excel at everything, would that make it right? Are we such utilitarians that we would guide our lives by studies of what other people do? That is the ultimate peer pressure.
Aug '10
Re: Failing Class? Have More Sex!
Wordcooper: To answer the question, I would prefer my daughter get failing grades than engage in premarital sex.
I would, too. Failing grades can more easily be made up for than the loss of virginity's power can.
My kids aren't even born yet. I don't know what the likelihood of them failing classes or engaging in premarital sex is -- only that it could be high, and I can't let eventualities surprise me. Still, that's no reason not to give children -- particularly girls, since whether it's fair or not, it matters more for girls -- the goal of reaching their wedding nights virgins.
Even if they ultimately fail in that goal, being able to say to a date, "No, I'm waiting for marriage," at least gives you a way to refuse your date sex without him losing too much face.
Wordcooper: If someone produced a peer reviewed study that skinning cats by the light of the moon produced children who would excel at everything, would that make it right? Are we such utilitarians that we would guide our lives by studies of what other people do? That is the ultimate peer pressure.
Yep. Quite percipient.
Re: Failing Class? Have More Sex!
Wordcooper: To answer the question, I would prefer my daughter get failing grades than engage in premarital sex. I wasn't perfect, but I waited for marriage and I will teach her and her brothers the same thing. There is absolutely no lasting benefit to sex outside of a long term committed relationship, which by definition would be marriage. It teaches nothing, while abstinence teaches self-control, discernment, strength and many other things. I wasn't married until my mid-thirties and the pain and suffering of abstinence was worth it.
Do you think abstinence should be taught in schools, or left for parents to teach their children? I like the idea of teaching abstinence, but I'm just not sure how seriously young people will take it.
Regardless of whether young people are actually having casual sex or not, I think that most young people take the idea of sex much more casually than was once the case. At least that's what I saw among students at my high school and college--the major exception was if someone had strong religious convictions, which is getting to be rarer and rarer these days.
Jun '10
Re: Failing Class? Have More Sex!
Emily Esfahani Smith
Do you think abstinence should be taught in schools, or left for parents to teach their children? Aug 16 at 2:13pm
Both.
Why are they taking sex more casually? Because everyone they look up to either treats it casually or doesn't talk about it.
It is insidious how lightly some want to take sex and yet the pressure to "Do it" is tremendously heavy on kids. The insipid advice you see on most TV shows is mostly along the lines of "if you really love each other or it's OK if you decide not to." What kid has the emotional and intellectual fortitude to make those kind of decisions?
Kids crave boundaries, even if only for something to rebel against.
Jul '10
Re: Failing Class? Have More Sex!
Well I'm on the side of whoever said that there shouldn't be public sex education in school. When did this start? Why is it the public schools' (thus the government's) responsibility? What about parents?
But yes I know, "Well if they don't learn it at home, where will they learn it?!" shouts the concerned education administrator. But if you follow that logic, then EVERYTHING becomes a potential form of "education." Hygiene, grooming, shoe tying (I could have used this one actually!), cutting your spaghetti, and any other absurd thing you learned as a toddler.
I've never understood why conservatives have been been so strongly in favor of having abstinence taught. The true conservative cause to me would be to remove sex education from public school entirely and return it to the domain of the home. Don't you all find it unsettling that the government essentially teaches your children about sex?
Re: Failing Class? Have More Sex!
Byron Horatio: Well I'm on the side of whoever said that there shouldn't be public sex education in school. When did this start? Why is it the public schools' (thus the government's) responsibility? What about parents?
Great point. School's should have nothing to do with teaching children about making love/sex. Since public schools are government run, their take on the moral questions surrounding sex will necessarily be political and ideological. So that's a no to sex-ed AND abstinence education in public schools. Sex is the business of families and religions not of governments.
I think parochial schools are different, though--what do you think Byron? By choosing a religious education for their children, parents are also choosing a moral education for them. So I can see where sex/abstinence education would have a place at a religious school.
Aug '10
Re: Failing Class? Have More Sex!
Emily Esfahani Smith
Schools should have nothing to do with teaching children about making love/sex. Since public schools are government run, their take on the moral questions surrounding sex will necessarily be political and ideological. So that's a no to sex-ed AND abstinence education in public schools. Sex is the business of families and religions not of governments.
I think parochial schools are different, though--what do you think Byron? By choosing a religious education for their children, parents are also choosing a moral education for them. So I can see where sex/abstinence education would have a place at a religious school. · Aug 16 at 6:54pm
Hear, hear!
The only "sex ed" you really need in school is what you learn in biology class anyhow. Private schools may want to teach more, as you said.
But good luck getting public schools to stop with the sex ed! They think sex ed's a higher priority these days than academics.
I had sex ed four times in public school. I used to joke they were teaching us abstinence through boredom: leave us nothing to be curious about, no reason to have sex :-P
Aug '10
Re: Failing Class? Have More Sex!
Emily Esfahani Smith: What I don't understand is why young women don't play the poker game. Young women today think exactly the opposite... They think that having lots and lots of casual sex gives them some sort of power over men...
Besides the reason I gave before, there are several others.
Sex, not virginity, is seen as the accomplishment. Girls who won't have sex are taunted with stuff like, "You're just too ugly/fat/stupid/whatever to get anyone to have sex with you!" Girls aren't taught that this taunting is stupid, that there are men who'll mate with cows and mules, their own hand, etc, that no girl is too undesirable for some man to want her. Girls aren't taught to respond to this taunting with, "Well, you're just too fat/ugly/stupid/whatever to get a guy without giving him sex!" which is usually a far more accurate insult.
And here's a biggie: girls may not be loved enough at home or among their friends, and they may not have enough meaning in their lives. Loneliness and alienation can make sex an achingly tempting temporary panacea, a drug.
Re: Failing Class? Have More Sex!
Midget
Sex, not virginity, is seen as the accomplishment.
Your comment reminds of Tom Wolfe's deliciously electric essay on hooking up. Here is one highlight of the piece: