Fathers Fear Not: Your Child’s Sexual Maturity Has Nothing To Do With Your Absence

child_porn_070510_mnIn spite of previous studies which stated that children’s early onset of sexual maturity and subsequent fornication was an indirect result of the absence of a father in a family unit, new studies are showing that it has more to do with genes than anything else. 

The study was conducted on women who were closely related in a sister, cousin or twin capacity throughout the years of 1979-1994.  It was found that the closer the relative ties were, the more likely their timing of first sexual encounters were eerily similar as well. 

This has prompted scientists to offer up the notion that genetics has more to do with sexual maturity and the first sexual experience than anything else. 

Of course, I’m no scientist, but I’d like to beg to differ on this one.  Incidentally, I believe that genetics has nothing to do with a child’s (male orfemale) first sexual encounter.  Children are raised under certain circumstances and certain ideals and values are instilled in them.  Whether or not said children take it upon themselves to practice what has been preached to them is always the question.  Whether it’s the absence of a parent (mother or father; it matters not which) that can result in more “alone time” for the child to explore different “paths” with other individuals or if the child was raised that early sex was an acceptable notion for parents to entertain; this has nothing to do with genetics.  Peer pressure and adolescence has more to do with it than genetics, in my opinion.  The media has more to do with early sexual experiences than genetics do.  Children and childhood is becoming so sexualized (see previous posts regarding inappropriate toys for children) because they’re allowed to think it’s cool and it’s alright, but it’s so not

To investigate the cause of children having sex earlier than they have in the past is similar to inquiring about Einstein’s theory of general relativity.  It’s cause and motherfucking effect.  It has nothing to do with internalized and ingrained decisions from generations past; it has all to do with current times and “acceptable” actions of society as a whole and it’s a total and utter copout for adults in a caretaker capacity to deny their responsibility to enforce these moral codes that children should not be having sex and procreating at such young, pre-adolescent stages of their lives.



You Might Also Like ...

76 thoughts on “Fathers Fear Not: Your Child’s Sexual Maturity Has Nothing To Do With Your Absence

  1. I think it’s horseshit too Sarah. The reason kids are sexually active too young is because they aren’t being raised with religous morals anymore and the lack of stigma associated with being active thanks in part to the media shoving sexuality down everyone’s throats. It used to be that if you slept around you were looked down upon but now you’re looked down upon for being a virgin.

    • I agree with you, but I think the word “religious” was unnecessary. Morals are what make the difference, whether they are linked to a religion or not is irrelevant.

    • You know which kids are getting pregnant the fastest? The “religious” ones who didn’t plan on having sex and didn’t plan ahead. I was not raised religious at ALL (I was raised more with “hippy spiritual” values and was encouraged to explore all religions and take them with a grain of salt), yet I didn’t have sex until I was married–long after my high school friends with “promise rings” lost their virginities in the back seat of a car. Women have the right to choose when they will have sex, and if you’re educating them that this choice is in God’s hands, not theirs, you are selling everyone short.

        • @Matrim; I’ve actually been asking around with my Christian friends/fanily, and they say that Jesus actually said to disregard the rules of the Old Testament. Which doesn’t make any sense because the Ten Commandments are in there, I believe.

          @Monica; I think the major flaw here is that you yourself chose not to follow the rules of the OT. Which is picking and choosing. And this isn’t an argument against you, but it’s just funny because many of my non-religious friends say the New Testament is ancient, its rules don’t apply to us. Just a fun fact. :)

          And no, I’m not trying to find loopholes or anything, I just felt there was a flaw in what you said, and I wanted to learn more so I could see if it truly was flawed. And I’m glad I know what you mean now!

      • I’m saving myself for marriage- I’m a Christian and I don’t pick and choose what what I will actually apply to my life that the Bible says. I do wear a purity ring, it’s just a reminder of my choice to be sexually pure in a world so sex-obsessed. God gave us free will, so teaching kids that the choice is in God’s hands is contradictory to what the Bible teaches. Simply, when God created sex, its purpose was to be something beautiful, and enjoyable to be shared by two people who love each other and or in a committed marriage, ordained by Him (thats just what I believe). I made the choice to follow purpose for sex because like I said before, I’m not a picker and chooser, and the more I’m involved with sin, the further I get away from God, which isn’t somewhere I’d like to be and lastly, I believe God created us, so when He asks us to do something, I’m sure it’s for a pretty great reason because He knows whats best for us (because He CREATED us and sex, makes sense I think). I totally agree that girls who are raised “religious” are the ones less likely to use protection, it’s a sad fact. That’s why I feel there should be a median between knowing God created us to be sexual beings and sex is for us to have and enjoy but there are standards to go along with it, which are for the best. I know I’m probably going to get a million hate comments, but hey, it’s just what I believe.

        • My daughter feels the same way as you do.
          And she knows where the condoms are in case that ever changes.

          I wouldn’t hate somebody for having a belief system. It’s only when people expect me to live by their beliefs that I get all roary.

        • Hey, no hate comments here. I think it’s fantastic.

          I was totally planning on waiting for marriage as well, but then I met the love of my life and ended up modifying my view to “waiting for the love of my life”. But more power to you for sticking it out.

        • You don’t pick and choose anything that the Bible says? So I take it you eat kosher, don’t mix linen and wool, and cover your hair?

        • At big k and the other person talking about pepperoni pizza: Those laws are both from the Old Testament, and I’m guessing you know a little bit about the Bible so you’d know those are all ancient Jewish laws, which as a Christian wouldn’t apply to me. PLUS after Jesus came, and with his crucifixion brought salvation, lots of things featured in the OT no longer apply and/or are necessary, like animal sacrifices, the Ark of the Covenant ect. The OT is a lot like a history book on how things were before Jesus.

        • So, you don’t think the teachings of the Old Testament apply to Christians? Cause, y’know, Adam and Eve, Noah and the Arc, David and Goliath, and things like that, aren’t taught in every Christian Sunday school class or anything. Original sin isn’t, to many, a main component of Christianity.

          I apologize for the sarcasm, but I’m having trouble at them moment trying to write in a way that’s different from the way I speak, and in a normal conversation, that’s how I’d say it. I’m not trying to be rude or condescending. I hope I make that clear. :)

        • All christians pick and choose what to believe from the bible, it’s the nature of the religion. Every sect of christianity believes different things and no one sect follows the bible exactly.

        • Of course the teachings of the OT apply to us, again it’s like a history textbook, it’s the history of my faith before Jesus and I believe it. Though we as Christians shouldn’t pick and choose what in the Bible we will actually apply to our lives but rules in the OT are, again, ancient Jewish law. This isn’t the 300 B.C.s or whatever and I’m not Jewish, and so it wouldn’t apply to me anyways. Following these rules ( specifically the strange sounding ones like the examples you mentioned) would be like following rules that existed in America a few hundred years ago but no longer exist or apply to life today. Plus infinite things changed after Jesus. I get you, and I can see how it’s difficult to understand how Christians should regard the OT when you aren’t a believer yourself. I get you that you aren’t trying to be rude or anything. I guess it either curiosity, or you just don’t believe in God or Christianity or whatever and you’re trying to go all Bill Maher in “Religulous” on me or trying to find loop holes in my faith and/or what I’m saying. Not trying to sound rude myself, but you aren’t going to find any. I’m the kind of Jesusfreak who knows what I’m talking about.

        • Oh, it should be noted that Jesus himself said that all the OT stuff still applied. People love to forget that whenever anyone brings up slavery, god-justified rape, or any number of inconveniences involving OT law (like blended fabrics, unkosher meats, etc.).

          They do, however, always seem to think that things involving homosexuality and the Decalogue are important, though…

        • Frondi, Monica made a statement,
          “I’m a Christian and I don’t pick and choose what what I will actually apply to my life that the Bible says.”
          That left her open to a lot of dissent because Christianity, like almost every religion on the face of the planet, is practiced differently by different branches, cultures and theologies.
          It does not make somebody a “bible hater” to call her on that statement, especially since it’s completely accurate to say that most Christians do, in fact, pick and choose.
          The most fundamentalist Christians in the western world would be seen as secular sinners by most Christians in the middle east.
          There are a great many things in the bible that are largely ignored by Christians in the modern world.
          Paul spent as much time railing against female pastors and teachers as he did against homosexuals and premarital sex. Have you ever seen a group of protesters threatening to withhold funding or yank their kids out of Christian colleges where women teach classes that men take? Nope. Have you seen these same people rally to limit the rights of homosexuals because “the bible says so”? I sure as hell have.

          I’m not suggesting Monica is a hypocrite. I’m glad she has a belief system that makes her feel secure in her decisions and the love of her God. I’m glad she feels that she’s pleasing the entity that she loves most.

          You, however, are a complete asshat so, so much of the time. You don’t get to hide behind the insult of “bible hater” when you don’t like the turn of the conversation.
          If you can’t handle actual dialogue that includes dissenting ideas, maybe you should just stay out of it. It was progressing quite civilly without your input.

        • Alzetia you and Syd and Rhonda are notorious for nitpicking EVERYTHING. There was no need to go off on this negative tangent about Christians. I wonder why you aren’t as critical of Muslims?

        • OMG. Here comes Frondi with her hatred of Muslims again.
          Go ahead and reread everything I’ve written in this thread. The only thing I was critical of was you.

        • Frondi, you might have noticed that everyone on this thread is having a reasonable discussion except one poster who apparently is incapable of taking part in a mature debate and instead resorts to swearing and personal insults. That would be you. If you have something to contribute then by all means contribute but if you have nothing to add then just move along and comment on something else.

        • OMG here are the three Christian hating stooges with their hyperbole again!!!!

          Replace the word Bible with the word Koran and tell me you 3 would be questioning everything in it in such an obnoxious way. This is thinly veiled racism on your part.

        • You don’t actually read what anybody writes, do you?

          My daughter is one of those good Christian girls who’s saving herself for marriage. I was the second person to respond to Monica, and I didn’t leave a negative comment.
          In fact, I made of a point of lumping Christianity in with every other religion in the world when I said that it’s rarely practiced the same way by all of it’s believers. Because this conversation was about the Christian bible, I didn’t specifically mention the Koran. You’re the only person who feels the need to bring Islam into every conversation.

          And I fail to see how what I said was “racist” since I specifically mentioned that there are practicing Christians in the middle east too. Am I only “racist” against my own race, or am I racist against the middle eastern Christians too?
          Can you make up your mind about what type of racist I am so I can get on with my hating?

        • I was thinking about writing some long comment, typing up everything I had to say to anyone I felt compelled to, but you know what? It’s really pointless. I’m about 5 seconds for crying right now because it makes me really sad how desperate for truth people are nowadays. Think whatever you want about my faith, mind you, I feel uncomfortable with the word “religion” being tossed around to describe Christianity. Sure many people may practice it as a “religion” but I feel to truly find God and have him do some radical things in your life, religion isn’t the road to take. I have a relationship with God, which began when I said to God, ” I know I’m a sinner and I don’t want to get wrapped up in that anymore, because I know it keeps me away from You. From this point on, I want You to be the reason I live and have You to lead me and guide me to do everything You want to do in my life.” Like the Bible says, you don’t gain true life until you lose it (as in giving it to God). I’m really praying for everyone here because your ideas of what the Bible is, what Christianity is, and all in all, who God is are really out of order. I pray and hope with my entire heart that one day you’ll find what life-changing truth is, which you’ll only find in Christ. Great, I’m starting to tear.

        • My ideas about christianity and the bible aren’t out of order at all. I’m very familiar with the book and the religion. Disagreeing with you does not mean I’m wrong, it just means we have a difference of opinion.

          BTW, telling people you’re going to pray for them because they disagree with you comes across as very rude and condescending. I can’t speak for anyone else but I’m perfectly happy with my spiritual beliefs and it bugs me when others can’t accept that and start praying that I convert to a different religion. I would never presume to do that, it’s just plain rude.

        • First off, I said that I don not consider myself to be religious, so using that word is inaccurately describe my faith. Secondly, I’m sorry you feel that I am being rude and condesending simply by praying for you. Because someone does not agree with me is not why I would pray for someone. I would pray for someone because my own personal convictions lead me to feel for someone when honestly, I don’t what believe what you do to be true; just as I’m sure you don’t believe what I believe to be true either. I respect your opinion and I’m not trying to change it, but I that does not mean that I must agree with it. And it since I do not necessarily agree with religion, I would not at all wish that you would convert and that have no problem with you being happy with your beliefs, I’m not trying to make anyone get saved here, but I would like for people to understand what Christianity truly is.

        • That’s great that you’re familiar with the Bible and Christianity: but are you familiar with God (as in the Christian God)? In the end, that’s whats going to matter-well, of course according to the Bible, which would be my personal opinion.

        • I can’t speak for anyone else but I do know all about christianity and that’s why I don’t practice that religion. If you’re happy with it that’s your business but I’m one of the many people who looked and didn’t like what we saw.

          If you’re not hoping to convert anyone why would you say “I pray and hope with my entire heart that one day you’ll find what life-changing truth is, which you’ll only find in Christ.” because I’m trying to think of another way to interpret that and I’m coming up blank.

        • First off, I’ve never seen the movie “Left Behind”, but I have heard its pretty good. Secondly, it only is if you treat like it is; and unfortunately many people do treat it as a religion nowadays, so saying Christianity is a religion isn’t a surprise when someone doesn’t know nor can really understand what Christianity is, if somehow not a religion. I’m saying in the way I the Bible describes Christianity was intended to be was not merely a religion, but a relationship between God and man. Thirdly, on the same note, if Christianity was meant to be merely a religion that would mean I wanted to “convert” you, I wouldn’t have prayed that you would find life-changing truth. That’s why you’re coming up blank. I would’ve just prayed that you would have had a confirmation or become a member of some church are anything else that religious people chose to focus on. See the problem with having a religion is that a religious person may not focus their attention to the changes that occur on the inside, but more on what things look like on the outside. When someone begins a relationship with God; the change happens internally and quickly begins to shine on the outside; because you’re so amazed with how incredibly awesome God is and want to go around spreading His love to others and telling them about the incredible things He’s done in your life. Back to the praying thing, why would I have even cared if I didn’t have God’s love in my life? because frankly, I wouldn’t have it if God didn’t teach me that there’s more to life than loving myself, even if that means you meet someone randomly through the Internet and hardly know yet still care about and want to pray for, which, no kidding around here, is how I really feel. Now don’t freak out, it’s just genuine compassion for someone I don’t feel knows the truth, because if you believe in something obviously that’s what you feel is the truth so I’m not trying to say what you believe is necessarily a lie, but it frankly isn’t true in my eyes. I really want this to end because I find this pretty pointless. But Rhonda, out of mere curiosity,what exactly did you see that you didn’t like?

        • Hi Monica, I admire your attitude and I’m glad you contributed even if others are compelled to nitpick. I’m not religous either but I do believe in the basics of Christianity. It’s just sad that a few zealots have managed to make the word “christian” something to be ashamed of.

        • What you call compassion I call religious fervor. If you were truly compassionate then you would respect others beliefs and not pray for them to be converted which is what you’re doing whether you like the terminology or not.

          I know exactly what you’re talking about and exactly how you feel. I grew up going to the brethren church and then later a baptist church. I went to bible camps and got my head filled with all that stuff that’s in your head now. 15 or 20 years ago I probably would have said something similar to what you’re saying now. Then I grew up and started thinking independently.

          I realized that I didn’t need a religious framework in order to be a spiritual and moral person. I didn’t need a book of myths to tell me how to live; I can figure out the right thing to do in any given situation. Sometimes that corresponds with what the bible teaches (respect for your spouse, no killing, no lusting after what you can’t or shouldn’t have, people should dress and behave modestly) and sometimes it doesn’t. If I were still a christian I’d probably be against gay marriage because that is what the bible says but I’d know in my gut that there is nothing wrong with two people who love one another getting married regardless of what their genitals look like. The bible says that you should be baptized whereas I don’t feel the need to be dunked in a tank of water, it’s just a symbolic ritual.

          We do agree on one thing though. This is pointless. I’ve already heard everything you have to say and dismissed it. You have no interest in hearing what I have to say. This tangent has gone on quite long enough and it has very little to do with the article.

        • You call what I am praying about to be conversion, and I am really sorry you feel that way. Your religious upbringing is solely to blame. You’re story is exactly why I am so against religion; it tends to push people away from God with it’s laws, requirements and conformity. No you don’t know how I feel or what I’m talking about because I am not religious, like you were. No, my head is not filled with the stuff yours was when you were merely “religious” because if it were, I wouldn’t have had an answer for everything everyone here has said. There can be a median between thinking for yourself and living your life according to God; but unfortunately with a religion, that median can’t exist. I am in no way like you were, thankfully, because the religious route is not the one I have taken nor a path I would wish anyone to choose. I do have a lot of interest of what you have to say because you are another victim of the cycle of religion; which one day I pray so hard that I can help change. Thats great you realized you didn’t need “religious framework” because YOU DON’T. No one does! We all need God, not all of the crap religion requires of us to do to get to Him.

        • A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices.

          I’m sorry, but if you believe that you’re living your life according to your god, it follows that your god has rules or statements of faith that you adhere to (otherwise you wouldn’t be living according to anything). That being said, you are religious. You may not like the implications that the word religion entails, but it doesn’t change the fact that it still applies. In fact, just the statement “we all need god” is enough dogma to make you religious. Even that aside, you’ve already stated that “we as Christians shouldn’t pick and choose what in the Bible we will actually apply to our lives.” You can’t get a more religious statement than that. You believe in the words of a supposed prophet as recorded in a holy book. Tell me, in what way are you ANY different than any other person of faith?

          I’d also like to point out that you are being extraordinarily presumptuous to assume that people can’t understand your thought process because they aren’t as “liberated” as you.

        • I can’t speak for Christ, but I’m not sure he would would condone all the back handed quasi-compliments and guilt tripping you’re throwing around here. ” I’m sorry you feel…” “Great, I’m starting to tear.” ( Did you mean tear up, or are you physically being pulled apart by our lack of faith?) But I am like, super,super, jealous that apparently God himself, in all His infinite glory, revealed the one and only true way of being a Christian to just you! Those billions of other people ( like Rhonda, evidently,) are just doing it wrong.

        • Monica – thank you for sharing your opinion and withstanding all the criticism you’ve been receiving. It’s harder to believe in something than nothing, which I think is pretty evident in the comments. I don’t think you’ve been throwing around “back handed compliments” or trying to guilt anyone, I think others may feel that way because they themselves are uncomfortable with what you’re saying and you’re beliefs. Wanting someone to know Jesus and to find him isn’t condescending unless you’re one of those people standing on the street telling people they’re going to hell (not ok and not true.) When you tell others that you want them to know Jesus it’s because you love them and want them to know the same love you do, not because you want them to feel guilty for having diffferent beliefs than you.

        • Finally I am understood! lol, thanks wpolochick. I’m pretty used to getting criticized for what I believe (hence why in my original comment I wrote “I know I’m probably going to get a million hate comments”) and getting accused of trying to be condescending or unacceptable of what others believe. Like you said and I have said before, I truly do what I do out of love; no matter what anyone else thinks my motives are. And I totally agree on the whole street preaching stuff; Christians like that get me very angry. I hope this can now be officially over, lets just end it on a “we agree to disagree!”

        • It’s cute how you managed to make yourself into a martyr for Jesus while simultaneously dodging the question that started this all: Do you follow every rule that is dictated in the Bible? ( The Bible is both Old and New Testaments, btw, but I’ll cut you break and just go by the New Testament. )

        • I’m not criticizing you for having beliefs, I’m criticizing you for double-think. You’ve directly contradicted yourself in this thread and your attempts at evasion only make things worse. You’re welcome to believe whatever you want, and you’re welcome to say whatever you want; but if you make statements of fact that are not supported by evidence or contradict yourself, it’s disingenuous to play the martyr. You set yourself up for almost all of it.

        • Why does someone have to follow every single rule that’s in the bible in order to be allowed to refer to themselves as a Christian? God doesn’t expect any of us to be perfect. You just do the best you can and follow the important stuff. what is it about that you guys don’t understand? God gave us free will for reason…

        • @Yolanda; I don’t think that at all! I myself am not Christian, but I don’t think you have to follow every single rule in the bible to be a real Christian. I think most of us have just been calling Monica out on saying she doesn’t pick and choose.
          Of course now that I’m typing this, I realize you may have been directing your comment at Monica as well… And I agree with you. I respect godly people, as I’m rather agnostic leaning towards believing in God, and think the bible contains pretty solid guidelines, but don’t think every single one has to be followed to be a good person. :)

        • OK Monica, I can see now that you have no interest in a reasonable discussion or learning anything new but rather that you just want to say that you’re right and everyone else is wrong. You have fun with that but I’m not playing your game anymore. I hope that some day you figure this stuff out for yourself.

    • Actually, kids have been sexually active at young ages pretty much since the dawn of time. Was a time when an unmarried 18 year old was looked at strangely. We’ve actually come a long way since the day we had 12 year olds serving as officers in the Navy and 13 being an excellent age to start baring children.

      • Agreed! Compared to generations ago we’re all prudes, haha.

        But I think sexual maturity can have a lot to do with when you hit puberty as well, and in that way genetics do come into play.

      • Yes, but that was back when you were sexually mature at 13, because you’d be dead by 35. Fact is, during the last few centuries, we started in on this whole ‘medical science’ deal, so we live two or three times as long as people in the middle ages and earlier, on average. To continue our species, we HAD to be married, sexually mature, and making babies by 12 and 13, because those ages were equivalent to being in our 20s and 30s now. As we learned to not die every time we sneezed, we began to live to older ages. And since we no longer had to have completed our whole lives in fewer than 40 years, we are also allowed to be children longer. There is no longer any reason for a 13 year old to be sexually mature, because she has another SIXTY YEARS to live, unless she’s genetically gifted, in which she has eighty. Yes, way back when, women who weren’t married by 19 were old maids….but because at that time, they’d be dead by 50. (As you can see, as life expectancy increased, so did the age for sexual maturity….in the 1800s, when people lived to 50 instead of 35, they were a child until they were fifteen….marriage and babymaking started happening between 15 and 20, not 12) By the time my grandma was a kid, people could live to 60 or so, no problem, and she was a ‘child’ for much longer than I was…..until she started high school, ideas of maturity really didn’t apply….she was in grade school, she was a child. However, despite the life expectancy being much higher now than it was in the early to mid twentieth century, kids are considered ‘adolescent’ much earlier. And there’s no real reason for that. In fact, the closest thing I’ve ever heard to an explanation? Obesity is causing earlier and earlier puberty. And the whole idea that ‘once you have a bra and a maxipad, you are a woman and not a little girl’ is encouraging these kids to think they are adults when they are CHILDREN. I have heard many girls 13, 12, 11, even younger say that since they wear a bra or have their period, they are a woman, and they can do everything that adult women (who are five or ten years OLDER than them, and much more mature than them, mentally, physically, and emotionally) do.

    • QUESTION! Why is it that I originally never even read the comments on this post, and certainly never made any comment on it OR anyone’s religion, yet Frondi has decided to mention me at all, especially as a Christian hating stooge? Can anyone explain the logic? I never said anything hateful to Christians to BEGIN WITH, certainly not to the poster in question (as a side note, I didn’t find anything objectionable about Monica’s post….she’s entitled to her beliefs, and doesn’t believe anything ridiculous to boot), so why am I dragged into this? WHY?

      If anyone is hateful here, it’s Frondi. His/her/its hatred obviously is so extensive that it can’t even be focused on whatever she/he/it is hating at the moment, and must extend to everything and everyONE that has ever come into contact with this website. JESUS.

      And anyway, I think we need to stop focusing on blaming specific people for kids maturing too fast, because it’s not any ONE PERSON’S FAULT. Sure, maybe a girl with daddy issues will be more inclined to beg for attention from other men. But if she has daddy issues and a really super great mother who teaches her not to, she might not act on the inclination. It’s not dad’s fault, mom’s fault, the media’s fault, school’s fault, or any one thing’s FAULT. It’s a combination of every type of facet, and it depends on the kid themselves. Instead, we should work on finding out how to stop these kids from jumping into sex too early, or protecting them if that absolutely can’t be done. Honestly, I know plenty of girls with daddy issues who are now adults and haven’t even KISSED boys, and certainly don’t frolic around like typical GGW chicks, because I guess the other factors counteracted daddy issues, or daddy issues affected them differently. And I know girls who had perfectly wonderful fathers and have found other reasons to be sexually promiscuous early on. Maybe it was the media, their environments, their mothers or other family members, their peers….all I know is: my best friend in grade school is 19 and has a 4 year old (after having an abortion at 13). Her father was one of the nicest, least abusive, most present, caring, wonderful father’s I’ve ever met, losing only to my own wonderful dad. Current best friend? Dad was exactly opposite, to say the least….and she is well rounded, not a slut (to put it mildly), and certainly wasn’t having sex as a preadolescent. And genetics can’t be blamed, either, judging from what I know about their extended families (which I admit is not too much).

      • Frondi just can’t keep the hate straight, we know this. Also I commented on the christianity stuff and apparently we just agree on everything in the world according to Frondi so naturally you’d hold exactly the same beliefs as me on this subject.

        • LMAO@hate comments. Sure anyone who challenges your shit is automatically some evil hater huh? You guys are so mature and progressive……NOT!!!

          Feel free to go back to your regularly scheduled program of blaming the white man and America for everything under the sun.

        • @Rhonda: I certainly don’t agree with you on everything! Perhaps it’s because we can disagree while still being relatively civil?

          @Frondi: The cliche ‘Pot calling the kettle black’ does not apply here. Why? Because the kettle is stainless steel this time, while the pot is still black. Damn, and I thought I was combative and easily offended….

        • Oh, and for the record, everyone, I just reread all the comments. I disagree with BOTH Monica and Rhonda. I’m sure that that fact alone has made Frondi’s little ‘you either agree with me or you’re a TERRORIST OUT TO GET THE POOR INNOCENT WHITE MAN’ brain explode. Perhaps we won’t have to deal with them any more?

          (To elaborate, I think that Monica is being quite self righteous and doesn’t fully understand her religion- or faith, if she’ll throw a fit otherwise- herself. However, I think Rhonda is also being overly critical of Monica and Christianity, although she does make several valid points. What we can all agree on, however, is that Frondi is being totally irrational and didn’t read a word that anyone said, and simply jumped to Monica’s side because she is not Muslim. Question, Frondi….what about religions that are not Christianity or Islam? Sippin’ that Hatorade for Judaism or Hinduism as well?)

        • I just don’t understand why Frondi think I blame white people for everything. Sorry to disappoint but I’m actually quite fond of white people and I think they have just as much to contribute to society as any other race. Just not big on the self-loathing thing, if you hate yourself and your people then change things instead of whining about how awful you all are.

          Gotta say though, “You guys are so mature…..NOT!!!!” gave me quite a laugh. I doubt it was meant to be that amusing and ironic but still, very funny way to start the day.

        • Frondi seems to be in the camp of ‘if you say anything bad about any white person ever, or say anything good about any person of color ever, then you hate white people. Also, if you ever acknowledge racism period, you hate white people.’ Reminds me of a comic I saw recently: a KKK member at computer saying ‘on the internet, no one knows you’re racist!’ A small percentage of white people seems to have a victim complex, probably based not on race at all, but can’t find a way to blame their dads or bullies in high school, so they decide to hate black people and Muslims (who, incedentally, are very often white people!) and then get offended if said blacks and Muslims don’t lick their feet and worship them for having melanin-deficient skin and a religion that is more popular in Europe than the Middle East, they pretend that they are hated, instead of just treated as equals. Heaven forbid lowly, failure black people like me enjoy the rights that my ancestors (from BOTH my white and black sides, thanks) fought to give me?

          Also, I think she ignores the fact that I am, essentially, white. My dad is white, and my mother has some white several generations back, so more white than black. But I hate white people, I guess….like the dad, my grandparents, myself….

  2. I really enjoy this blog, mostly because it presents the sort of issue I like to think about, but I’m also a scientist (molecular biology, i.e. genetics) and I’d just like to point out a couple things.

    The first is completely arbitrary, but irks me ever so. Cause and effect (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction) is actually Newton, not Einstein.

    What is significant, however, is the misperception of genetics that this article has. It is difficult to communicate the findings in the article correctly because genetic correlation is inherently difficult to understand, precisely because of cause and effect type thinking. Simply having a gene or set of genes doesn’t mean any particular outcome will happen. In fact, to assume so is fallacious. What the article finds is a strong level of heritability for first sexual encounter. This term has a very specific definition, and means only a few particular things. Think of height for example. That is another trait that is highly heritable. Given taller partents, a child will generally be taller as well. But, you all know that this doesn’t always hold, and that there are many developmental factors that influence this as well. Diet and nutrition is the first that comes to mind, but there are many other environmental factors that impact growth hormones, etc.

    Think of it this way. Imagine a world without genetic influence. You would get an array of different people with different ages of first sex, based solely on environmental factors, namely upbringing and social inputs. This is intuitive, and what you would expect. What this article demonstrates is that, when genetic factors are taken into account, this array of ages is skewed a certain way; that this age is heritable to a certain degree. So, in this scenario, all the people with “young sex” parents would have slightly earlier first sex ages than you would expect in the world without genetics, and vice versa for the “old sex” parent group. You still have “exceptions” in that someone who had an upbringing conducive to “old sex”, but who had “young sex” parents, would still likely have “old sex”, but it might be slightly earlier than you would otherwise expect.

    Okay, so I know that’s confusing, but that’s what heritability is. The main thing to keep in mind is that “It has nothing to do with internalized and ingrained decisions from generations past” is a COMPLETE misinterpretation of genetics. Genetics cannot be influenced by the decisions of past generations. The papers argument is that a heritable gene (or likely genes) has some influence over the age of first sex. The biological reason for this is likely hormonal. No, this doesn’t mean that genes control behavior, but they can influence them. That’s when identical twins are often remarkably similar, even in behavior.

    Most importantly, I should point out that I agree with your reaction to the article. It’s a typical “nature vs. nurture” issue, and I agree that the social input is probably far more important. This isn’t in conflict at all, however, with the original journal article (media is bad in general at reporting science). All it states is that there is a component of heritability. Assessing the degree is notoriously difficult, primarily because social norms are, on average, passed down from generation to generation quite well. ALL THE AUTHORS ARE SAYING IS THAT “FIRST SEX” AGE OF SOMEONE’S PARENTS BETTER PREDICTS THIER “FIRST SEX” AGE THAN FAMILY STRUCTURE DOES.

    • I study Molecular Biology too :) You’re right that having a gene that shows you have a tendancy towards something doesn’t mean that you will have it/it will happen to you, other factors come into play with it too.

    • THANK YOU, fellow scientist!
      I agree this is nature v. nurture, and that there are so many parameters involved it becomes difficult to quantify how much of a certain behavioral characteristic is genetic patterning, and how much is environmental conditioning.

      Most of all, thanks for pointing out that relativity has nothing to do with this article. I’m a physicist and there is nothing quite as irritating as when people assert that Einstein’s theory means “everything is relative”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>