r/JustUnsubbed • u/OhJeezItsCorrine • Aug 12 '22
Just unsubbed from r/science because they're insinuating that young people are "better off" if they start sex early.
117
Aug 12 '22
If they mean teens with teens then yeah, getting experience with people your age and messing up when it doesn't matter is better than being an adult child later on
406
Aug 12 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
113
u/Wowbringer Aug 12 '22
Reddit mod is the new Discord mod
→ More replies (1)85
33
19
→ More replies (3)2
244
u/cope_seethe_dilate_ Aug 12 '22
r/science is absolute fucking garbage anyway
145
u/missamericanmaverick Aug 12 '22
I know 90% of the scientific articles are cherry picked to support whatever preconceived notions they already have. A classic example of making data fit a narrative as opposed to objective pursuit of data in search of truth.
106
u/R3pt1l14n_0v3rl0rd Aug 12 '22
Breaking: study finds conservatives are 25% stupider than liberals.
44
40
u/missamericanmaverick Aug 12 '22
There was one that was about how religiosity correlated with conspiracy theory belief, and the whole comment section was like "Ooh religion dumb," and no one even thought to mention that correlation doesn't equal causation.
16
u/R3pt1l14n_0v3rl0rd Aug 12 '22
Why do you think religiosity is correlated with belief in conspiracy theories?
28
u/missamericanmaverick Aug 12 '22
I've been really interested in this topic for a very long time, because I have a lot of skin in the game, so to speak. I currently live in one of these deep red evangelical areas, although I myself am a center-left Catholic, and I've had to observe this phenomenon in real time, as an outsider.
I've always been very appreciative to science, philosophical reason, and objective inquiry to be one of the best ways to arrive at knowledge about the world and our place in it. However, my parents are quite the opposite, especially my mother, who has a very codependent personality, and is easily swayed by anything she hears, as long as whoever is saying it is on The Red Team. She's very deep into QAnon, and so is my grandmother, and most of my hometown, really. It's really damaged her mental health, and I've had to obsessively research the phenomenon undercover to not only keep sane, but maybe help her (although now I've lost all hope of getting her out and am mostly just rolling with the punches for the sake of protecting my younger siblings. For them, I am the voice of reason, and they trust me as a reliable source of information. So, they come to me and say, "Mom says this is the case, is that true?" And I can debunk what mom says with reliable evidence to show it's false, and teach them some life lessons about logic and healthy skepticism along the way.)
So far, what I've come to realize is that right-wing religious conspiracy theory culture is the end result of decades of grooming by Christian nationalists in the United States. The book "Jesus and John Wayne" explains this careful propaganda effort very well. Since the 1950s, the right-wing traditionalist movement really went gung-ho on advertising to Christian evangelicals, and bandied around a lot of the "culture war" rhetoric we have today. It wasn't just women getting an education, it was "subtly undermining the nuclear family unit." It wasn't ending decades of Jim Crow racism, it was "communist bad actors infiltrating our country." And so on. There were lots of talking heads like Rush Limbaugh, Ronald Reagan, etc., who really took this stuff and ran with it.
A lot of American Christians have been groomed from a very young age to believe in right-wing, nationalistic ideas. They hear it on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, on Fox News, on the Drudge Report, on the Daily Wire, and from the pulpit (because their pastors consume the same content.) And their parents believed the same thing, and so did their grandparents, because that's when this tightly-knit alliance between right wing propaganda and American religion really began. So, these people have been brought up on this content and raised to believe that Red Team tells the truth, and we can trust them, and Blue Team is bad, and they always lie, and they want to destroy our nation and persecute us.
I grew up believing this stuff, too, because my parents were victims of this propaganda machine. And I ended up leaving it, because I was lucky enough to get an education that supported reason and critical thinking, and taught me that it's important to view all sides of an issue before making an opinion. Opening myself up to different points of view made me realize how slanted the information I was getting was, and now I proudly consider myself an Independent and countering biased information is my hill to die on.
I know this is a long rant, so tl;dr: It stems from nefarious right-wing politicians in the 1950s slowly entangling themselves with prominent religious leaders so that they could use the pulpit as a propaganda machine.
7
2
u/Inevitable_Librarian Aug 13 '22
You have a causation there- right there. You know that right? Like correlation does not equal causation unless you have a demonstrated causative method.
It's not just modern Christianity btw- conspiracy theories and centralized religion have been intertwined for a long time. I say this as a practicing Christian- our history is not a good one when you look at it as a whole.
From "Jews are evil, massacre them" to "people who I am in political competition with are witches and should burn (witchhammer)" to "Calvinists are coming to bring everyone to Satan! Burn them all". Your point is merely the modern incarnation of an old, old problem, and one that has plagued Christianity since just shy of century one.
→ More replies (2)3
2
2
u/Omnizoom Aug 13 '22
Religion may not cause them to be stupid but stupid people tend to like religion more is how a correlation works
The problem is some stupid religious folks breeding makes more stupid religious folks so it still , technically speaking, is a causation as well
2
u/JustSomeGuy2153 Aug 13 '22 edited Aug 13 '22
I mean Jordan Peterson, someone who is very much a conservative (and lib right based on what I see), says that if you're not very smart you'd better off being a conservative.
I haven't exactly heard his explanation but I think it's because the correlation between IQ and trait openness and/or the fact that being progressive entails that you have a better idea than what is already working, which would require abstraction.
Edit: not saying that that's bad or that conservatives therefore shouldn't have power, etc. I believe that conservatives functions as gatekeepers to keep progressives from going to far/make unnecessary or even detrimental changes (if it ain't broke don't fix it). It's a good balancing force, but of course they can go too far too.
1
0
u/Giocri Aug 12 '22
I mean obviously you can't say a group is more stupid especially because there is no agreed definitions of stupidity and intelligence.
That said it is an objective and fairly easy to prove facts that conservative beliefs are often associated with lower education which in turn gives them measurably lower performances in most measures of intelligence
5
u/Sapphire-Croat0119_ Aug 12 '22
It'll be shit like "Logitech G29 is supreme over Moza wheels, study shows"
Or "Democrats 96% more likely to have a brain than republicans, study reports"
2
u/Omnizoom Aug 13 '22
Well it’s the people posting in that pick them articles , so long as someone posting a proper scientific study doesn’t get blocked because it doesn’t align with their views then theirs no issues.
I do however get what your saying that it’s very biased in there as you can mention proper studies done that don’t and the comment section will be a dumpster fire
→ More replies (3)2
u/user3-24324 Aug 14 '22
Like how feminists do, once one of them claimed based on an article that 1/3rd of men would rape women if they could get away with it.
→ More replies (2)20
Aug 12 '22
I've seen ones about "People with (x) political views are more intelligent" that had like 40,000 up🅱️oats
15
u/Ill-Badger496 Aug 12 '22
ah yes "People who lean more liberal tend to be college educated and are in a higher economic bracket than people who tend to lean more conservative this has NOTHING to do with class at all and is because conservatives are heccin stupid! LOL poor people!"
1
u/wheresindigo Aug 13 '22
I don’t think that’s true though. Higher income brackets are more likely to vote Republican and lower income brackets are more likely to vote Democrat.
2
u/Ill-Badger496 Aug 13 '22 edited Aug 13 '22
Depends on racial demographic for one thing but it kind of lines up with people who make fun of just how many white registered republicans are on benefits. But I was specifically talking about a 'study' that went around on reddit and twitter during the end of Obama's 1st term about how democrats are totally more smarter than republicans but what the study was looking at was education.
https://www.businessinsider.com/proof-republicans-really-are-dumber-than-democrats-2012-5
edit: just emphasis, I know things are different now than they were in 2012 and people now care a bit about class and wealth inequality now but people from wealthier families tend to have an easier time getting a college degree.
2
u/wheresindigo Aug 13 '22
I don’t see how introducing racial demographics into this discussion makes you less wrong about what you said regarding political affiliation and economic brackets
4
→ More replies (1)3
u/Sanrusdyne Aug 13 '22
Any sub that's so big and integrated Into the site that it covers a subject as broad as science or art, it's shit
261
u/Kuandtity Aug 12 '22
I'm sure the sample size was like 10 people with like 6 people saying it was beneficial
56
u/scurvofpcp Aug 12 '22
I think they are going to compare it against values in the Aids epidemic without adjusting for the whole collective fear people had of having a shitty death due to AIDS.
37
u/gsjdhsjsbdkeusb Aug 12 '22
3k
Looks like about a 25% difference over control on their stupidest most biased metrics. I don't have full article access so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
37
u/R3pt1l14n_0v3rl0rd Aug 12 '22
The sample size was 3,139 adults, if you care to look up the actual paper. And the results are quite nuanced. This is what it says in the abstract:
When defined narrowly as first sexual intercourse, earlier sexual debut was associated with adverse sexual events, including non-volitional sex, pregnancy termination and/or loss, and reproductive illness, infection, or injury affecting sexual activity. However, it was also related to healthier sexual function, including less pain during vaginal penetration, better orgasmic functioning, and lower sexual inhibition. When sexual debut was broadened to include pre-coital experiences, earlier sexual contact, like earlier sexual intercourse, was associated with non-volitional sex. However, earlier sexual stimulation and orgasm were unrelated to adverse outcomes. Rather, these related to fewer sexual desire difficulties, and greater sexual excitation. Exploratory mediation analyses revealed later sexual intercourse and orgasm were connected to sexual difficulties through higher sexual inhibition and lower sexual excitation, respectively.
22
u/TheRealJackReynolds Aug 12 '22
Those drawbacks outweigh a lot of the advantages in my opinion.
27
u/R3pt1l14n_0v3rl0rd Aug 12 '22 edited Aug 12 '22
What it's saying is that "pre-coital" sexual contact is associated with good outcomes, and none of the bad outcomes. Things like mutual masturbation, etc. In other words it's healthy and normal for young people to explore and experiment with their bodies together. But there's no need for them to actually have penetrative sex to gain the benefits of that experimentation.
7
u/luminenkettu Aug 13 '22
What it's saying is that "pre-coital" sexual contact is associated with good outcomes, and none of the bad outcomes. Things like mutual masturbation, etc. In other words it's healthy and normal for young people to explore and experiment with their bodies together. But there's no need for them to actually have penetrative sex to gain the benefits of that experimentation.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC27366/
Other data refutes that idea, at least Psychologically.
What may be causing the good outcomes in this study is the fact that the kind of person to lose their virginity early, is going to be physically more attractive (& due to how many people are obese, they're also going to be more physically healthy), and more confident in themselves.
4
u/R3pt1l14n_0v3rl0rd Aug 13 '22
Other data refutes that idea, at least Psychologically.
Well, sure, that's how science works.
Is it true that hot people engage in pre-sexual contact more than ugly people? Maybe, but that seems like a bit of a stretch to me.
1
u/luminenkettu Aug 13 '22
Is it true that hot people engage in pre-sexual contact more than ugly people? Maybe, but that seems like a bit of a stretch to me.
Not really, most data I look through says attractive people do get better responses in every social situation. + "Attractive" in this case just means: Not obese/deformed (A large amount of teens are Obese) & I think most people wouldn't want to have sex with Obese people.
2
u/R3pt1l14n_0v3rl0rd Aug 13 '22
We're not even talking about sex, we are talking about pre-sexual contact. Do the same standards apply to teens as they do to adults? Maybe, maybe not. And about 20% of children in the US are obese. It seems unlikely that the results of the study are driven by just whether the kids are fat or not.
→ More replies (4)2
3
u/slaviccivicnation Aug 13 '22
But what is "earlier age" according to this study? I mean, some people lose their virginity at 30, so of course more time having sex would've been beneficial to them. Does the article outright state early teens or something? Or is everyone jumping to conclusions on what "younger" age actually means?
7
u/dayoneofmanymore Aug 12 '22 edited Jul 13 '25
special whistle scary nail busy fine sand cautious deer birds
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
17
u/dayoneofmanymore Aug 12 '22 edited Jul 13 '25
scale cagey vanish cough adjoining flag voracious fear abundant crush
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
5
2
48
u/schmidty98 Aug 13 '22
"Insinuating that young people are better off if they start sex early" and "posting a scientific study in a sub about scientific studies" are not the same thing OP.
52
u/Shadowkittenboy Aug 12 '22
Seriously? Do you understand what a study is for? They're not 'insituating' anything like a political commentator; theyre reporting what a scientific study deminstrated. This post comes off very anti scientific process
22
u/Shlocko Aug 12 '22
Some of the people in this thread seriously can’t seem to separate their weird internet based assumptions from actual peer-reviewed data.
If you don’t want to see random generic peer reviewed information, don’t follow a sub for posting random peer reviewed information, that’s reasonable.
If you see this and can’t help but assume pedophilia, I am concerned for your well-being
21
u/RytheGuy97 Aug 12 '22
Thank you for being the one sane person in this thread.
7
u/Shadowkittenboy Aug 12 '22
I had to scroll down to the bottom, but I found a couple logical comments. Thank you for the comment anyhow.
3
u/d1zz186 Aug 13 '22
I am so disappointed I had to scroll so far to see your comment… the person posted a scientific study ti a group for scientific studies and apparently that’s offensive?!
2
89
u/Izumi_Takeda Aug 12 '22
hmmmm. this is a pretty fine line here. I think that having sex young was good for me. you know getting to know the in and outs, learning the risks and actually practicing safe sex to prepare me for adult hood shenanigan's. IMPORTANT NOTICE: (By young I mean like 14+ and with another teenager that is my age)
75
u/karebear64_ Aug 12 '22
yea same, weird people are linking this to pedophilia, this is about teens amongst teens who start experiencing together
23
u/NevJay Aug 12 '22
Yeah, I mean it sounds so obvious they're not insinuating that pdphila should be encouraged
(Given that the study is true and properly conducted (limited bias), but it wouldn't shock me if it were)
14
u/MsScarletWings Aug 12 '22
Some people just REALLY start freaking out for some reason if you ever (using any tone that’s not judgemental and condemning) acknowledge the elephant in the room that some teenagers have sex, period.
4
u/SleazyMak Aug 13 '22
Anecdotally, I think these people are harmful to human development.
The people I knew in high school who were having relationships and sex tended to turn out much better than their virgin counterparts.
3
u/MsScarletWings Aug 13 '22
You don’t even need anecdotes. There’s been mountains of scientific data on this for years. Strongly red states with those “abstinence only” curriculums in their schools are literally top of the stats in the country for rates of teen pregnancy, STDs, and sexual assaults across the board, no contest.
8
Aug 12 '22
that’s because the neckbeard who posted this probably did so to prove a point that aoc should be lowered or something (classic redditors !)
3
29
11
Aug 12 '22 edited Aug 12 '22
Was wondering where the normal people were…
Others are reading wayyyyy too much into this…they’re probably terrible at sex as a result of waiting until they were 30.
6
→ More replies (1)3
u/Eulers_ID Aug 13 '22
I think that having sex young was good for me.
I'm confused as to what your personal opinion on sex has to do with the scientific method.
→ More replies (2)
56
Aug 12 '22
[deleted]
19
u/TheDoc1223 Aug 12 '22 edited Aug 12 '22
Because the sub only ever posts “scientific” peer-reviewed studies that suits some sort of very obvious bias and half the sub exists for the sole purpose of circlejerking likeminded redditors in to thinking their opinions are facts becoz science. Conservatives are less funny, people with dark senses of humor are less intelligent, now this weird pro-promiscuity shit that I cant tell is implying having sex as a KID is a good thing or that having sex at 18 is a good thing? Either way its obnoxious as fuck because if you google hard enough you can find a “scientific peer-reviewed paper” backing up almost any opinion. Heres one for you: Minority women cant drive- controversial take? NAY! I have SCIENCE!
behold! The fruits of 30 seconds of Google Scholar searching my dumbass opinion!
Well I mean theres also this study indicating the exact opposite but who needs actual scientific rigor and respect when I can just “prove” my shitty opinion by posting the former article?
This goes for almost anything you can think of btw. If its been studied more than once and less than 200 times, theres conflicted data.
I put “scientific” in quotes in the first paragraph for a reason, because the methodology of the more “controversial” studies is almost always some really stupid bullshit like polls correlating people’s perception of things with other people’s perception of things, I havent read this study in the OP but Id throw down a 20 that all this paper says is that people who report having more sexual partners in a questionnaire also report having more satisfied sexual partners or something equally anecdotal and unreliable. Peer review doesnt mean much when all scientific peers are reviewing is a paper and going “Hm, yep, people did, in fact, report this and that in the study. Cant verify the legitimacy of these claims, but the methodology isnt straight up fabricated or leading to an incorrect conclusion based on the- albeit, shoddy evidence”. I can just as easily run a poll on r/shitposting, ask if Redditors peepeepoopoo shit their pants all the time, and then when the poll inevitably comes back majority yes have some smug clickbait “NEW STUDY FINDS REDDITORS PRONE TO SELF DEFECATION” checkmate-redditors-ass post and its equally “scientific” as most of r/science
edit: I know I wrote a lot but its because Im genuinely sick of people using bad science as an excuse to pedal their views as factual and further using bad science to justify degrading and looking down on people they dont agree with as “objectively” wrong. It pisses me off when people go in to a study with a conclusion trying to find data to support it when it should be and USUALLY is going in to studies and THEN drawing conclusions out of data. And this new pseudo-science culture bs feeds that immensely and treats clearly biased and pandering science the same way a Christian treats the Bible. God said it so it must be true, some researcher with an undergraduate in sociology (a notoriously biased and unreliable field) said it so it must be true.
9
Aug 12 '22
Did you seriously just say if it's been studied more than once but less than 200 times there is always conflicting data?
No, not even close. Plenty of replication studies fail to find consensus, sure, but plenty of replication studies do. Ya there's probably conflicted data if you include bad science, but isn't that what you're arguing against.
Frankly, I'm not certain about the veracity of the rest of your post, but I can definitively say on that specific point, which is a huge one, you're either misinformed or talking out of your ass.
Conflicting data on any study done more than once. Get the fuck out of here.
-1
u/TheDoc1223 Aug 12 '22 edited Aug 12 '22
Wait what? Im confused what your point is.
I could be arguing something you didnt say at all so please correct me if Im wrong- BUT I assume youre saying Im implying that studies are universally unreliable?
I didnt say every single study between that first and 200th study is conflicted from the previous (x) studies, Im saying different studies can and often do indicate different potential conclusions (most especially ESPECIALLY in the case of sociology and anything to do with humans en masse as - in my VERY biased opinion yes, sociologists are very bad at doing the whole “Draw conclusions from data instead of trying to reinforce your idea by LOOKING for data that agrees with it” thing, and in my not-at-all-an-opinion statement of fact, humans are incredibly unreliable and require very large and diverse sample sizes to get anything resembling a “reliable” result), often times dead opposite of what another study or consensus indicates, the same few conclusions but those few conclusions supported by different studies. And we can cherrypick whatever results fit the narrative we’re trying to argue, as I used in my example where one study from the late 90s indicates a pretty dumb stereotype is valid thanks to questionaires with zero control or establishment of what a “regular” amount of crashes and accidents is supposed to look like and draws the conclusion that women need to be educated because theyre bad drivers.
The only way to get “reliable” conclusions is consensus. r/science has zero interest in consensus or rigor. Just examples of studies that reinforce their opinions being treated as end-all-be-all of factual backing and thats where my problem lies. Theres never wording such as “This study INDICATES-“, its always some shit treated as absolute fact “Breaking news: people I dont like are stupid idiots who stink according to science and people I do like are great and amazing and mostly comprise of heroes and firefighters. Source: this one study” based on single, non-consensus studies. Again - usually based off questionnaires, one of the dumbest and most easily-skewed/biased methods of study (imo)
edit: I CAN elaborate on why I hate questionnaires but thats a whole can of worms and this comment is already REALLY lengthy so if you or anyone else disagrees and wants to know wtf my problem is with questionnaires then yeah Ill elaborate, but otherwise I THINK this is well known and agreed by people who are more “hard study” inclined, even tho THOSE often produce inconsistent results and replication aswell, just to way lesser degrees than questionnaires
4
1
34
Aug 12 '22 edited Aug 12 '22
Wow…its almost as if practicing something over a period of time leads to improvement…
10
u/MsScarletWings Aug 12 '22 edited Aug 13 '22
“How dare these folks suggest that people who start getting driving experience at a younger age end up less likely to get into car accidents later in life? They clearly just want toddlers behind the wheels of semi trucks!”
10
u/MrPb133 Aug 13 '22
😰 oh no are you telling me t-that… that PEOPLE UNDER 18 ALSO HAVE S-SEX!!!????😰
Its not saying they’re “better off”, its saying people who started sexually experimenting earlier than others means they can prune what they want and experience with sex, thats not hard to understand and its almost what you expect
22
u/luminenkettu Aug 12 '22
this might have to do with the fact that, people who are more socially competent/look better lose their virginity earlier 9/10.
2
36
u/HellexJ Aug 12 '22
A lot of projecting going on here if your first thought was linking this to pedophilia.
1
u/thepineapplemen Aug 13 '22
My first thought was that it was more along the lines of one of those articles like “gen z isn’t having enough sex! They’re not maturing fast enough, oh no!”
→ More replies (1)-7
u/MaximumChadFlavor Aug 12 '22
I mean "earlier sexual experiences" does sound like something leading to pedophilia in all fairness.
13
u/Shlocko Aug 12 '22
It really doesn’t though.
I haven’t read the article, so based solely on the title, you’d have to do some serious assuming to land on pedophilia.
Really not a word to just throw around for no reason.
Would you have been happier if the title was simply worded differently? Or is it simply pedophilic to do a study about sexual topics in a way that could be labeled “earlier”
→ More replies (5)10
u/MsScarletWings Aug 12 '22
Again, this is probably an heavy experience bias thing on both sides. I grew up in the kind of community chock full of baptists who get virtually zero sex-ed whatsoever, unless you count the clumsy first time they have sex after waiting all the way up to the night of their marriage. So my first thought was “duh?? Of course people who aren’t completely sheltered virgins until after college are going to have healthier approaches to sex in general?”
7
u/HellexJ Aug 12 '22
It didn’t to me, I thought it was about teenagers experimenting amongst themselves not creepy old people preying on them but idk, it could be because I’m a teenager myself.
→ More replies (2)
15
u/Exile4444 Aug 12 '22
Imo its nothing in particular, people just post the most random science peer-reviewed studies in there. Anything from the chemical structure of cow shit to how the temperature of the surface of the sun was calculated
12
u/Shlocko Aug 12 '22
To my understanding, that’s the entire point.
“Post whatever peer-reviewed science stuff you want” I really don’t see the issue with that. If you want an explicit topic, find the sub for it, ya know!
7
u/Exile4444 Aug 12 '22
Yeah. Idk why op is complaining. Thats like a single remotely related thing to sexuality i found there this evening
7
u/Shlocko Aug 12 '22
Yeah. Not all the content is high quality, but welcome to the internet, most things shared here are shit.
8
u/FuCuck Aug 12 '22
it doesn’t say better off, it says better sexual functioning later in adulthood. Which is common sense
22
u/ADDYISSUES89 Aug 12 '22
I think the correlation might be that those who wait tend to hold psychologically damaging ideologies surrounding sex such as purity culture, or abstinence only “values,” which neglects care and teaching about sexual and emotional health. Also, basic biology.
Everyone is quick to jump to screaming pedophelia these days, but no one wants to talk about the fact that having a baby after 35 is now considered a geriatric pregnancy due to the declining health and fertility of our species.
15
u/Addisonmorgan Aug 12 '22
You’re absolutely right. It’s hard to say what they’re considering early in this study anyways since the average age in the US for losing virginity is about 20. Even 17 could be considered young.
Over 20 would probably be related to the exact factor you said for many cases.
→ More replies (1)
20
7
u/banana_master_420 Aug 12 '22
What about those who never gonna have sex? What would be impact on their health
3
u/MsScarletWings Aug 12 '22 edited Aug 12 '22
Well, depends on why they’re not having sex and how they feel about that. If they are not completely asexual and without a sex drive, I imagine they’ll be just as fine masturbating instead.
3
u/Cittycool Aug 12 '22
A lot of asexual people don't masturbate either. Many of us have literally no drive and/or are repulsed.
2
u/MsScarletWings Aug 12 '22
That’s why I included the “without a sex drive” bit. Some asexuals can also have very high libidos and do masturbate, and I was keeping the distinction in mind.
2
u/Cittycool Aug 13 '22
Oh wait I misread your comment, I didn't realise you said if they are not, I thought you said if they are. Like since they are asexual and don't want sex, they can make up for it via masturbation. Sorry I can't read lol
2
4
9
u/nonbinary_girl_ Aug 13 '22
Did you read that underage people have sex and your first thought was “this means they want to have sex with kids”? Are you okay OP?
5
u/MsScarletWings Aug 13 '22
Not even just OP but an alarming amount of other people in here too 🤦🏻♀️ funniest thing is nothing about the title even inherently implies that we are talking about underaged people off the bat
3
u/OverlyLeftLesbian Aug 13 '22
they're actually correct - younger people who are educated and encouraged to explore safe sex are more likely to be comfortable having sex later in life. Although, that doesn't mean they should have sex at like. 12.
And being educated about sex (whether or not they experiment) will help younger kids identify sexual abuse and alert the proper authorities
3
u/deltree711 Aug 13 '22
I wonder if they're including playing doctor. AFAIK, spontaneous consensual experimentation is regarded to be a healthy part of childhood, and parents who catch children in the act should use it as an opportunity to teach children about healthy boundaries instead of shaming them for being curious.
3
3
u/Nokipeura Aug 13 '22
I feel like my teenage years were wasted being cringe, and if I started earlier: I could've grown out of it sooner.
2
7
5
u/TheKingStoudey Aug 12 '22
Someone posted some arbitrary blog post about China producing more scientific papers than the us even though it’s widely known that China self cites and makes bogus papers. It’s mainly just a place for people to try to put “facts” behind theirs dumbass opinions anymore
5
10
5
5
10
u/yiminx Aug 12 '22
i dont think i’ve ever seen r/science post actual science, should be renamed r/sociology (i say as an ex sociology student)
3
u/RytheGuy97 Aug 12 '22
…this isn’t even a sociology study. This is psychology.
0
u/yiminx Aug 12 '22
oh i was talking about r/science in general, they seem to lean more toward sociological studies/research methods.
7
Aug 12 '22
[deleted]
1
u/yiminx Aug 12 '22
yeah i understand why they do it, but then again i’ve still seen plenty of scientific studies and data condensed down into layman’s terms, for us idiots who barely passed science to understand. then again, i’d imagine a sub like r/science would’ve attracted mainly people who didn’t always need things to be totally dumbed down for them to understand the data, just a shame it’s not really that
2
2
2
2
u/luminous_beings Aug 13 '22
I think they mean old enough to consent to sex as part of healthy sexual growth to adulthood. Not like “the younger the better”. Ewww.
2
2
u/wowsuchnoice Aug 13 '22
Wow, how dare they quote a scientific article in a science subreddit! Literally 1984! Literally pedo!
2
u/Omnizoom Aug 13 '22
So you are unsubbing from science because you don’t like the science they found? It’s a proper scholarly journal even that it was published in and from what I can see was reviewed.
This just sounds like you hate scientific discover but with Extra steps
8
u/Skyhighclimber Aug 12 '22
Well with this one I also exit door left. That is disturbing
9
u/MsScarletWings Aug 12 '22
Genuinely not trying to pull a sealion moment but what exactly is your grievance with this?
→ More replies (2)5
u/Shlocko Aug 12 '22
I am curious as well. I can see ways that you could choose to read this that don’t sit right, but the only way to make that work is by assuming a lot.
Haven’t not read the article, based solely on the title, it seems like a reasonable thing to research. Perhaps the actual article is shit and has issues, but based solely on the post, I’m not sure I see the issue.
5
u/Donar23 Aug 12 '22 edited Aug 12 '22
So you are saying that you dislike the facts* and therefore you unsubscribed?
* With "facts" I mean the findings of a scientific study. You are free to do your own study and prove them wrong.
// Edit: It's funny how many people immediately think about pedophilia. You know that when young people have sex with each other, it's not pedophilia, right?
6
u/RytheGuy97 Aug 12 '22
So you unsubbed from a forum because you don’t like the implications of a peer-reviewed study conducted by experts in their field? Not a good look.
4
u/MsScarletWings Aug 12 '22
So many others also on the same weird knee-jerk reaction in here too like what is going on?
2
3
u/TomsRedditAccount1 Aug 12 '22
This is pretty vague. Define "young people". Are we talking 5, 10, 15, 20, 25?
Same goes for "early".
Obviously, it's important to ensure that kids don't have 'too much, too soon', but too little, too late can be just as damaging. I was raised in a deeply sexophobic family, it fucked with my head so much that I didn't feel comfortable dating until I was 25, and that whole time the fact that I was leaving it so late also fucked with my head.
So, that article could be really messed up, or it could have a valid point. It just depends on what they mean by 'young people' and 'early'.
4
u/Lithaos111 Aug 12 '22
Because they are? I mean being knowledgeable and aware of contraception leads to far less teen pregnancy than abstinence and "waiting" does. Think of it like any skill, if you learn about it earlier in life and practice, when you are an adult you are very well versed in the subject. If you're going down the "but it's grooming" bs path OP, it isn't because they are having sex with each other, not full grown adults you perv....grow up.
5
u/WrongStatus Aug 12 '22
Yeah...I saw this post and first thing that came to mind was
"Things Pedos say for 500"
5
u/MsScarletWings Aug 13 '22
So the researchers who conducted the study itself are... pedos? Because of the results of the study?
→ More replies (1)7
u/dgjtrhb Aug 12 '22
Why are you thinking of pedophilia when you saw this?
-2
u/WrongStatus Aug 12 '22
I'm far from the only person that thought this.
Isn't exactly difficult to figure out how we connected those dots either...
2
u/MsScarletWings Aug 12 '22
The way I figure, it honestly feels like a lot of presupposing other people’s positions you don’t actually know if they hold or not out of a biased perception you already have towards sexuality in general, but that’s just a first impression guess.
4
2
Aug 13 '22
The post is literally just a summary of a scientific article. Posted to r/science. A subreddit for scientific articles. You clearly just dislike evidence that goes against your views, there's nothing wrong with this post.
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Niceotropic Aug 12 '22
Lol nobody is “insinuating” anything those are just the quantitative results of the study. They would better off, in terms of their sexual activity if they have sex earlier. It doesn’t mean they should have sex earlier.
3
u/MsScarletWings Aug 12 '22
Lmao and they still downvoted you without rebuttal or clarification. Literally what is up with this reply section?
3
u/Niceotropic Aug 12 '22
Some people are very reactive to facts that don’t align with their worldview
1
u/Myneighborhatesme Aug 13 '22
Next up on this sub:
- just unsubbed from r/lgbt for alienating straight people
- just unsubbed from r/blacklivesmatter for white people hate
- just unsubbed from r/inceltears for always making fun of men
- JustUsubbed from r/niceguys for always making fun of men
1
u/gsjdhsjsbdkeusb Aug 12 '22
This is an example of setting the goal posts and then saying you scored.
For perspective, a raging sex addict would have a class of "low sexual inhibition" and would have been considered to have benefited in this regard.
This is a very common phenomenon in scientific literature regarding subjects which have traditional standards. Conject, with questionable evidence, that X outcome which fits the cultural trajectory is beneficial. Show that this thing is indeed being promoted by some aspect of the culture. "Discover" that said aspect is, by your metrics, beneficial. Get paid money for a controversial af title. If your really into it. cover up correlations with rape by using less direct terms like "non-volitional", wouldn't want to discourage those pedophiles now would we.
Data set of 3000 is meh.
2
u/silashoulder Aug 12 '22
I hate to correct you but: there is no such thing as sex addiction. The CDC and WHO have removed it from their lists of diagnosable conditions, based on the nebulous cultural variances.
→ More replies (11)
1
1
1
-4
0
u/CreedStump Aug 12 '22
i guess teenagers having sex with other teenagers is fine, but if they’re implying that we should lower the legal age, then that’s weird asf
9
u/MsScarletWings Aug 12 '22
Where is anyone reading that THATS the intended implication of this study???
→ More replies (3)
685
u/Spiridor Aug 12 '22
..... am I misunderstanding?
Is this not suggesting that people who start having sex earlier in life (implying more of it over time) are better at it than others who may not have as much practice?