Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Cash S | May 6th 2007 10:55 PM | 10 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments


High intelligence is the best protection against early sexual activity during adolescence, research has shown. Can it be that intelligent kids don't need free condoms to be convinced they shouldn't have sex? Well, yes, that may be, but it may also be that smart kids just can't get dates.

To reach this conclusion about intelligence and sexual activity in teens, researchers in this year 2000 study at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and McGill University took two separate sample groups in the 7th to 12th grades. Both studies used the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) as an intelligence measure and confidential admissions of sexual activity.

Virgin by choice? Or she just can't get a date?



Their results showed a distinct bell curve. Teens at the upper and lower ends of the intelligence distribution were found less likely to have had sex. And even once they started being sexually active, the more intelligent ones postponed the full range of partnered sexual activities until later than the rest.

So it's really only the average intelligence kids we have to worry about. That means the guys on the football team couldn't get laid either? I bet you feel a lot better knowing that.

What the study leaves out is whether or not the kids in this study could have had sex. It's easy to correlate intelligence with not getting sex if you don't ask about willingness.

Jason Malloy at Gene Expression wrote:

One reason we might guess that smarter people in high school, or in more challenging colleges or majors, delay their sexual debuts is because they are delaying gratification in expectation of future reward. Sexual behavior (or at least the investment needed to procure a partner or sustain one) may compete with time/resources required for other goals, and intelligent people may have more demanding goals.

Which is a nice way of saying intelligent teenagers don't have sex, but they could.

Mr. Malloy also notes this survey from Wellesley that says 72% of biology majors were virgins.

Do you believe 72% of biology majors could have sex but still don't? Granted, I think biology students are enlightened ( though not as enlightened as math students, with 83% virginity ) but they can't be that enlightened.

University of Georgia Assistant Professor Joe Sabia addresses this in the upcoming issue of Economic Journal:

... estimates show that sexually active adolescents have grade point averages that are approximately 0.2 points lower than virgins. However, when information on the timing of intercourse decisions is exploited and individual fixed effects are included, the negative effect of sexual intercourse disappears for females, but persists for males.

In other words, the large majority of biology majors are males and an even larger percentage of them make up the gene pool * of virgins in these results.

That means girls, even among biology majors, can get sex whenever they want - and they're all intelligent enough to know it.

*Clever, aren't I?

Comments

Chicks dig diks, i dig chicks ... Does that mean i'm a dik ??? i hate philosophy LOL ... I'm smart, sexy, and mount chicks, so whats the big deal :D

Cash's picture
You must not be a biologist.

i'd hit the chick in the pic up at the top, she aint nerdy , shes hot man

The thing isn't that kids can or can not have sex, because for every one of those smart kids (that is ugly) there is a smart kid of the opposite sex (also ugly) that might or might not be willing to have sex. So it has to do with intelligence i believe.

Hank's picture
Anderson,

I'm with you. Kids are nothing if not determined and creative when it comes to sex - if they want it. So if they aren't getting it, there's another reason than ability to find it.

Pfft, everyone knows that nerds can't get laid. This is not news.

Speak all you will about the West being a patriarchal society, women still control who does and doesn't get to have sex.

Hank's picture
Indeed, it's only patriarchal in an idealized world.

Compared to the actual world, women have a tremendous amount of equality in the west.

Name the last female President. Who's last name did you inherit, your fathers or your mothers?

Hank's picture
If you're using patriarchal in a literal sense rather than the more common 'male dominated' sense, the entire known universe is patriarchal, not just the western part of it. However, the head of Germany is a woman, the head of England was. I am sure there are more examples.

Did you say 'the west' but mean only the USA?

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.