Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
It's funny.  Laugh. Science

Smarter Teens Have Less Sex 1285

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the still-no-excuse-for-you dept.
Tech.Luver writes "Gene Expression reports, "Tyler Cowen quotes from a new study testing the relationship between grades and delayed sexual activity. Last December I passed a paper along to Razib showing that high-school age adolescents with higher IQs and extremely low IQs were less likely to have had first intercourse than those with average to below average intelligence. (i.e. for males with IQs under 70, 63.3% were still virgins, for those with IQs between 70-90 only 50.2% were virgin, 58.6% were virgins with IQs between 90-110, and 70.3% with IQs over 110 were virgins) In fact, a more detailed study from 2000 is devoted strictly to this topic, and finds the same thing: Smart Teens Don't Have Sex (or Kiss Much Either). ""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Smarter Teens Have Less Sex

Comments Filter:
  • Idiocracy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bunratty (545641) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @10:37AM (#20070587)
    Idiocracy [imdb.com], here we come!
  • Re:I Believe... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mayhem178 (920970) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @10:38AM (#20070607)
    Uh huh. And later in life, they're called "Yes sir, right away, sir!"
  • No regrets. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @10:42AM (#20070689)
    I had opportunities to get my freak on back in the high school days. Had I been smoother or said the right thing (translation: been less of a nervous shit) or whatever I could've got in somebody's pants. However, I have no regrets whatsoever about not getting a girl pregnant and fucking up my life like many of my other classmates. In fact, thank $GOD that didn't happen, and if I could go back and do it all over again, I wouldn't change anything.
  • by jellomizer (103300) * on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @10:43AM (#20070691)
    No I wouldn't say that. Slashdot is filled with some smart people and a lot of people who want to be smart... Just because you can use Linux doesn't mean you are smart, just becasue you can't doesn't mean you are stupid. I know some people who use Slashdot and run linux with actual below average IQ's. I would say while the average IQ on shashdot is above average is just because it is a convient source of news (or at least use to be it has been getting dumbed down over the years) of Science/Technical Information so experts in such fields use it to get some information... But just because you are a geek or a nerd it doesn't mean you are smart, just a social outcast.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @10:43AM (#20070709)
    you need to just, like, you know?

    dont worry my ex wife was retarded. shes a pilot now.

  • by vfrex (866606) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @10:44AM (#20070717)
    Now I am conflicted. Half of my inner geek wants to laugh and take the joke, and the other wants to rail on you for creating causation from correlation. But either way, I'm posting on /.
  • Re:The question (Score:3, Insightful)

    by east coast (590680) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @10:54AM (#20070879)
    I think it has to do more with smarter kids understanding what they have to lose if they have an "accident".

    I'm sure other studies have shown that smarter kids, on average, come from better off parents, financially speaking. Being that these kids aren't dumb they see the downfall of parenthood at the time that they should be headed off to further education and career building.

    Coming from a school district where we have the haves and have nots pretty well represented it never surprised me to find the lower class students being the ones getting knocked up.

    What does strike me as odd as that the lower class either doesn't seem to have made this connection or they just plainly don't care. We certainly didn't need a study to see this in action.
  • by jellomizer (103300) * on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @10:55AM (#20070889)
    Simpler then that...
    Teenagers with low IQ normally are not left alone to do what they will. Because parents don't trust them to do the smart thing because they arn't, combined with the fact they get usually get extra adult help means less exposure with other kids, and the oposit sex feels guilty about sexual activity with that group, so combined that will make a lower rate.

    High IQ teens stop and think and realize that risks of Sex as a teenager (STD, Pregnacny) will get in away with their life plans being with higher IQ society expects more from them with their life plans so they stay away from such risks. Basicly I am not going to let a Baby get in my way to become a doctor. After I get my degree and a steady job then I may focus on having a family, Logical reasoning by people with higher IQ.

    Teens in the middle are not pressured to become a Doctor or whatever so they have less ambitions for life and figure it may be worth the risk. Combined with the fact they may not think things fully out and let biological pressures take over what people say they should do.
  • Braaaiiinnssssss! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by IBBoard (1128019) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @10:57AM (#20070963) Homepage
    Or decides that she's hungry and wants to eat them! Now that would be worrying. And disturbing. And wrong.
  • by Hatta (162192) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @10:59AM (#20070979) Journal
    There is plenty of time for sex and sex when you think you know so much when you actually know very little is much more likely to lead to complications.

    But there's only so much time for sex with teenagers. Get it while you can guys.
  • by dominion (3153) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @11:00AM (#20071011) Homepage

    I'm in my mid-twenties, and I didn't have sex until the very end of high school, and didn't date at all, and I seriously don't feel like I missed out on a damn thing. Sex when I was 18 was awkward and boring, I can't imagine the kind of horrible flopping around I would have had if I had been 14 or 15.

    I know we live in an ephebophilic society where your teenage years are supposed to be when the best years of anyone's life, but let's all be honest here: Being a teenager sucks. You can't drive, you can't drink without having to sneak around, you're kind of an idiot, you don't know what the hell you're doing when it comes to members of the opposite sex, and that's not even starting to mention acne, braces and a bad fashion sense. I much prefer my twenties, and I'm looking forward to my thirties. I'm having a great time compared to ten years ago.

    So maybe being smart and not having sex in high school isn't that groundbreaking of a correlation. Why is it so important to have any sex when you're in high school anyways? Shouldn't it be more important to have good sex when you're older? Where's the study on sex lives of single smart twenty- and thirty-somethings? I'd be interested in that study.

    P.S. Watch the "abstinence only" crowd use this as ammunition: "See! Smart teenagers choose abstinence!"
  • by pezpunk (205653) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @11:01AM (#20071031) Homepage
    i was one of those high-IQ virgins and let me state, from first hand experience, the following: HA HA HA HA HA!

    yeah, right, i didn't WANT any girls to pay attention to me! that's it!

    you've got to be kidding me.
  • by AKAImBatman (238306) <akaimbatman.gmail@com> on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @11:05AM (#20071105) Homepage Journal

    Queue Slashdot Reader Love Life Jokes

    Slashdot readers have such high IQs that they realize that sex leads to babies, contraceptives don't work 100%, having intimate contact with some random person is a good way to get disease, and that one should save themselves for a life-partner so that they're ready for the responsibilities that come with sex while simultaneously avoiding the issue of STDs. So they don't have sex as teens.

    HAHAHAHA! Isn't that funny?

    ...

    Anyone?
  • Re:I Believe... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lumpy (12016) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @11:06AM (#20071129) Homepage
    Actually no. In reality you get to management by who you know and social skills.

    What you know and your IQ actually tend to hurt your chances.

    I hate to burst the geek bubble but it's truth.

    want proof? WOZ is a rich geek but never was upper management.

    Gates was never a geek, he was a poser and the face man. (sorry gate's early code is horrible and first year quality) he had business sense and knew people as well as has social skills in a bizzare way.

    Jobs = Face man he is the guy that makes you like him so much you will sell him your stuff at cost or buy his product by standing in a line outside for hours when there is no supply problems.

    If you are a geek and high IQ I STRONGLY suggest taking etiquette classes, social interaction classes and do everything in your power to have the knowledge to fake being good at party socializing. You have to be the guy that everyone loves in the first 15 minutes of meeting them. Speak eloquently, be good at faking that you really are interested in how well her pedicure went and how that CEO of that company had a horrifying day because he had to way 30 minutes for road service to show up and fix his flat tire.

    Crack the code of socalizing, get that one done and you will become upper management.
  • by BytePusher (209961) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @11:11AM (#20071217) Homepage
    There are a few of reasons I think this might be true:
    1. Smarter teens believe that sex can be risky. Namely: Unwanted pregnancy, disease, emotional distress and not to mention social pressures from parents.
    2. Smarter teens may have higher standards as they are able to distinguish better between "good mate" and "not so good mate."
    2a. Finding a good mate may mean finding an intellectual equal.
    3. A deep fulfilling intellectual and emotional relationship may be more important than and a prerequisite to simple sexual pleasure.
  • Re:true (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Penguin's Advocate (126803) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @11:13AM (#20071261)
    "It was one of the best decisions we ever made"

    Not to pry, but... how do you know?
  • by pezpunk (205653) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @11:13AM (#20071265) Homepage
    i see our high IQs also allow us to invent quite plausible excuses for why we can't get laid!
  • Re:The question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GogglesPisano (199483) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @11:13AM (#20071275)
    It's our choice of course. However, you may regret those missed opportunities twenty years from now. "Saving yourself" for some conjectured Ms./Mr. Right is quite a gamble - you won't get that time back if the person doesn't materialize, or doesn't turn out to be the perfect mate you'd envisioned.

    At your age, you should be taking in as many new experiences as you can. There won't be many other times in your life where you are as unencumbered by obligations and responsibilities.

  • by fredrated (639554) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @11:14AM (#20071285) Journal
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?

    Think of it this way, if everyone was as smart as you and me, we would just be of average intelligence.
  • by petrus4 (213815) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @11:15AM (#20071323) Homepage Journal
    As an example case, I was a virgin until I was 26. Yes, if I'm honest it's true that I had utterly no clue how to understand or communicate with the opposite sex, but I'll also admit that sex quite simply isn't something that I've ever consistently had a strong interest in.

    Although this is nothing whatsoever against the person who this happened with, even after losing my virginity, I can remember thinking of that experience, while reasonably enjoyable and positive, as not seeming to deserve anything like the degree of hype that most people associate with the act. Most of the people I've known seem to regard sex as being the pinnacle of human experience, and that is an attitude which I find deeply sad.

    I know that a predictable response to this will probably be to speculate that I am in fact homosexual, but I do not believe that to be the case, and to be honest, that is something else about the customary attitude towards sex that I find deeply pathetic. Namely the idea that if a person doesn't have one preference, then they *must* by definition have another, because not being helplessly addicted to sex in either straight or gay form is supposedly completely impossible...in most people's minds, it just doesn't compute.

    Some of us honestly view reproduction as being the domain of animals. Given that we have more than enough other human beings who are quite happy to devote their own lives to that activity, this means that those of us who have that attitude are also able to persue the expansion and enhancement of our minds, without fear as to the possible consequences to the human population.

    If you're someone for whom sex is the most important element of your existence, I'd strongly advocate getting a life.
  • Re:I Believe... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by molarmass192 (608071) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @11:18AM (#20071389) Homepage Journal
    This is one of the most insightful posts I have seen on Slashdot. This is the stuff they DON'T teach you in university but they should. Moving into upper management isn't about WHAT you know, it's about WHO you know. You can call it bullshitting, ass kissing, whatever ... but the perception people have of you determines where your glass ceiling lies. Yes, keep your skills up to date, but also keep your address book up to date and send a keepalive on your entire social network every quarter. Crap ... now I can't use my mod points here.
  • by AKAImBatman (238306) <akaimbatman.gmail@com> on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @11:20AM (#20071441) Homepage Journal

    It's not like being a 30 year old virgin

    See, funny thing, that. I'm married. Two kids. And my wife thinks I'm quite amusing at times. Even when she groans at my terrible gags.

    So what's this about your luck with women... ?
  • by Johnny5000 (451029) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @11:35AM (#20071721) Homepage Journal
    Sex when I was 18 was awkward and boring, I can't imagine the kind of horrible flopping around I would have had if I had been 14 or 15.

    Maybe if you started at 14 or 15, it wouldn't have been so awkward by the time you were 18.
    Practice makes perfect.
  • by cayenne8 (626475) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @11:36AM (#20071745) Homepage Journal
    "Slashdot readers have such high IQs that they realize that sex leads to babies, contraceptives don't work 100%, having intimate contact with some random person is a good way to get disease, and that one should save themselves for a life-partner so that they're ready for the responsibilities that come with sex while simultaneously avoiding the issue of STDs. So they don't have sex as teens.

    HAHAHAHA! Isn't that funny? "

    Hehehe...you had me going there for awhile.

    Really...it sounds bad, but, I'd almost recommend for teens to have as much sex as possible at that age, just use protection!!!

    That is the only time in your life where you'll be able to (in some cases legally) to screw teen girls while everything is tight and where it is supposed to be. Gravity takes a toll on the old human body as you get older. And with people getting obese at earlier and earlier ages....get some fun in while you and potential partners are in good shape.

    Especially true for guys. As a teen, you are in your prime and best years for sex...stamina, endurance. Do it now and do it as often with as much variety as you can. In a few short years, you will start going downhill....and your selection of partners will be older and more worn looking too. Enjoy it while it is good, and build those memories.

    Sounds really against the grain of normal recommendations, but, as I get older, I realize it is that way. I'm glad I got as much as I did growing up...wish I'd had even more...

    So, I say GO for it....you're only young ONCE!!

  • Re:The question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hatta (162192) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @11:42AM (#20071847) Journal
    So use a condom smart guy. One day you'll realize sex is no big deal and you wasted a lot of time being freaked out about it instead of doing it. I don't think you should go fuck a random girl, but expecting sex to be some magical experience with your soul mate is really setting yourself up for disappointment.

    One day you're going to meet someone you love and respect and want to stay with forever. You want to "sow your wild oats" before that, or you'll spend the rest of your life wondering what sex with other women would be like. It's a lot easer to know you've made the right choice when you've tried a few of the other options.

  • Re:Idiocracy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by edmicman (830206) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @11:45AM (#20071885) Homepage Journal
    Yes, why shouldn't some loser-ish bum get to have sex and make children, so I can abstain and take their progeny off their hands. If I'm raising kids in my own image, they're for damn sure going to be my own bloodline as long as it's physically possible...
  • by SIIHP (1128921) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @11:46AM (#20071897) Journal
    "Some of us honestly view reproduction as being the domain of animals."

    There it is. If you were being completely honest with yourself, you'd admit that you think your ability to do without sex makes you more evolved, more developed. That sentence displays your thinking quite obviously.

    Sadly for you, that's ridiculous. Sex is a wonderful, pleasant, somewhat messy, but ultimately fantastic part of the human experience. Missing out on it is not something to be celebrated.

    Yours is the classic sour grapes position. If I can't have it, it wasn't that good anyway.
  • by vertinox (846076) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @11:49AM (#20071969)
    HAHAHAHA! Isn't that funny?

    I dunno. This is one of those cases where two things appear to be related but its actually something else that is key.

    Maybe it would be more true if you say "The fact that certain teens can't have sex because they are social dejects leads to them focusing on other things such as schoolwork and hobbies like computers and D&D which results in higher IQ."

    Given the choice, I'm sure all of us would have sex over schoolwork not because we are smart but because... Well... We have social akwardness.

  • by AKAImBatman (238306) <akaimbatman.gmail@com> on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @11:49AM (#20071981) Homepage Journal

    So you married the first woman that came along that didn't gag in your presence.

    If by "first woman" you mean, the first woman to captivate me with her beauty, grace, and intelligence, then I suppose you could say that. Certainly, I was never attracted to the types of airheads that less honorable boys find so easy to "get in the sack". When a girl took several weeks before she finally got the punchline to "there are three types of people in the world", I did not find it charming or cute. I found it horrifying, and would rather have stayed a virgin for the rest of my life than try to build a relationship with someone like that.

    If all you want in a mate is someone to have sex with, then that is your choice. I believe that God gave me a brain to think with and make intelligent decisions, not allow my loins to drive me. One of those decisions was staying true to who I am when finding a woman to spend my life with. And wouldn't you know it, the woman I chose was also the type to want more than just a physical relationship. She could have had any man she wanted, but she didn't. She chose me instead.

    A relationship like that makes one remember how unique that other person is. And how important it is to make the time, put in the effort, and give the attention necessary to keep that relationship thriving over the years.

    It's easy for me to give a flippant answer to a flippant statement, but I'd rather say something that will actually *help* people. And if there is one thing I can say, it's this: Relationships are about commitment. The best method of telling if someone is for you or not is not their looks or any "compatibility" tests. It's asking yourself if you're willing to devote the rest of your life to them and them to you. THAT is the true test of a relationship.
  • by hellfire (86129) <deviladv.gmail@com> on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @11:54AM (#20072057) Homepage
    Although this is nothing whatsoever against the person who this happened with, even after losing my virginity, I can remember thinking of that experience, while reasonably enjoyable and positive, as not seeming to deserve anything like the degree of hype that most people associate with the act. Most of the people I've known seem to regard sex as being the pinnacle of human experience, and that is an attitude which I find deeply sad.

    To put it bluntly, sex is good. Sex is really good. Sex is GREAT! But... it's not great for everyone. Not everyone has the same feelings of sex that you or I have. Like many things, sex isn't about like it or don't like it, or heterosexual/homosexual. It's a spectrum. Some people, like yourself, look at it as something mildly entertaining but not an incredible experience. Others, like myself, think it's incredible and, quite honestly, have a high drive for it. There's nothing wrong with either of us, as long as neither of our behaviors hurts ourselves or others around us. It's just different brain chemistry.

    Some of us honestly view reproduction as being the domain of animals. Given that we have more than enough other human beings who are quite happy to devote their own lives to that activity, this means that those of us who have that attitude are also able to persue the expansion and enhancement of our minds, without fear as to the possible consequences to the human population.

    It's ironic that you make this statement, because animals use sex solely for reproduction. Humans are the only species that have sex for recreation, and we of course have tons of contraceptive tools now to increase the amount of sex we have while decreasing pregnancy. The way humans have sex is a very uniquely human thing on this planet.

    If you're someone for whom sex is the most important element of your existence, I'd strongly advocate getting a life.

    I find this statement rather close minded. Up until this point, I figured you were simple someone who chose not to have sex. But honestly your statement is simply illogical and jumps to a judgmental conclusion. Are you resentful that the world is a little too oversexed and your own desires don't match it so you simply rail against it?

    It's your choice not to have sex, and it's your right not to. However, don't look down on others simply because they chose to have it. There are tons of people having sex for the wrong reasons, but there are tons of people also having it for the right reasons. It feels good, it's a stress reliever, it does cure headaches (stress related only, not the migraine or sinus kind), and it's all around a good time. Why, there are plenty of intelligent people who do have sex and find creative ways of doing it to enhance the experience.

    Don't judge others for your own choices in life, and they won't judge you.
  • by pete-classic (75983) <hutnick@gmail.com> on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @11:59AM (#20072111) Homepage Journal

    I can remember thinking of that experience, while reasonably enjoyable and positive, as not seeming to deserve anything like the degree of hype that most people associate with the act. Most of the people I've known seem to regard sex as being the pinnacle of human experience, and that is an attitude which I find deeply sad.


    In an important, Darwinian sense sex is the pinnacle of human existence. And normal human beings are evolved to appreciate that experience. Did you care for the person you slept with? Did you abandon yourself to the experience? Are you sure you were doing it right?!

    A life spent obsessing about sex is certainly wasted. But isn't it equally wasteful to reject a normal, natural, deeply pleasurable part of life?

    Some of us honestly view reproduction as being the domain of animals.


    News flash, dude. You're an animal. We're all animals. I am profoundly grateful for my ability to reason, but that doesn't change the fact that I am a man of flesh and blood.

    this means that those of us who have that attitude are also able to persue [sic] the expansion and enhancement of our minds


    You seem completely convinced of this obviously false dichotomy. Where on Earth did you get the notion that love-making is anti-intellectual?

    And what will exist of that mind when you are gone? The only ways to pass any of that on are education and procreation. If you are truly the grand intellectual you seem to believe yourself to be, stop being selfish and pass your wonderful genes on!

    -Peter

  • by phorm (591458) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @12:01PM (#20072157) Journal
    My observation has been that those who are more hard-working or studious tend to have less time for relationships, physical included, and the other things that come along with them (children, etc). Perhaps it's not so much that they're smart as that they're busy?
  • by Reapy (688651) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @12:02PM (#20072195)
    I think that is bs. No matter how "smart" you are iq wise, there are still biological urges. I think the results presented in the summary neglect the amount of people that fall into each IQ slot.

    People with HIGH IQ's are DIFFERENT. They sometimes go to college when they are 16, or are in upper level classes with older kids. Most of the high IQ people will have have nothing in common with their classmates. Just becuase you are a freshmen in a senor class doesn't mean you are going to have watched the same tv shows and played with the same toys everybody else grew up with.

    So you are this outcast in a sense, there aren't many people around who are going to keep up with you, and at this point in your life, you probalby don't know how to relate to other people and present yourself as an attractive individual.

    I think it is really the iq difference creating a barrier for forming close relationships with the opposite sex. People who fall in the middle of the IQ bell curve are going to meet lots of other people that are at the same speed as them, and concequently have an easier time finding a mate, leading to sex.

    And sure, some teens do avoid sex. I did...after i had done it, of coarse. I knew all the risks and really didn't want to have a baby at 17. But that still didn't change the fact that I needed to crush the "virgin" status first, and then after the fact, I avoided sex as much as possible with my GF.

    Anyway, people chose not to have sex for a multitude of reasons, and IQ alone isn't enough to conclusivly prove that "if you're smart, you don't have sex". I still think the number one reason teens do not have sex is that they do not know anybody who wants to do it with them, and don't know how to open up and present themselves in a way that someone will want to sleep with them.
  • Next story... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by tgcid (917345) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @12:06PM (#20072273)
    Next article on Slashdot, people with average IQ have more sex than people with non-average IQ. Researchers believe this will cause average IQ to stay average.
  • by Turn-X Alphonse (789240) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @12:06PM (#20072287) Journal
    Yes, go fuck as many people as you can, because STDs aren't common and it's not like HIV only takes 1 split condom and a stupid girl who doesn't know she has it.

    Hmm.. Not like HIV is fatal though right? I mean wouldn't want to die at 25 because I fucked a hot 18 year old and a condom split or anything.
  • by mini me (132455) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @12:09PM (#20072343)

    I, on the other hand, will struggle along trying to do all three at once (educate, save, vacation). Who is smarter?

    You're actually at the advantage, financially. You've had ten or so good years to start investing money that your friends didn't have due to childcare costs. Even if you stopped when you reared your first child, you're still making money on your initial investments. Your friends on the other hand will struggle to save later in life because they lost all those years of sweet, sweet compound interest.
  • Re:Could be true (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SatanicPuppy (611928) * <Satanicpuppy@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @12:16PM (#20072507) Journal
    The first one. It's hard not to over-think relationships when you're prone to using your brain a lot. On top of that, you're better at projecting long range consequences, so you have a natural inhibition toward casual sex. On top of that there is the Marshmallow test [wikipedia.org] which has been correlated with intellect, and which bears directly on "To schtup or not to schtup."

    I was pretty active as a teen, but full on "all the way" sex bothered me enough that I avoided it until I was in college. I always worried about commitment issues, and pregnancy, and all kinds of crap.

    As for the second option, I think it's been substantially proven that lack of sex makes you less intelligent, not more, because so much of your brain is taken up with thinking about the sex you're not getting.
  • by Psmylie (169236) * on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @12:16PM (#20072511) Homepage
    "She could have had any man she wanted, but she didn't. She chose me instead."

    I don't think you intended to say she chose someone she didn't want :)

    In any case, I agree with you. All it takes is 1 or 2 really bad relationships to show you that the best alternative to a good relationship is to be alone. I'm not saying you should hold out for a perfect person (there is no such thing) but focus instead on the qualities of character. Personality, intelligence, humor, etc. is much more important than looks, because honestly... after 40+ years of marriage, s/he isn't going to look all that hot anyway. If you marry someone who is hot but stupid and shallow... after a few decades they'll by ugly, stupid and shallow. Trust me on this.

  • by Control Group (105494) * on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @12:17PM (#20072525) Homepage
    Um...

    There is a deep satisfaction to finally nailing down that piece of code, or finally grokking what's going on in that core dump, or putting the finishing touches on your life-size popsicle-stick replica of the Death Star - and I've been able to enjoy all but one of those (I'll let you guess which) - it is really, really no replacement for good sex.

    It may be better than the average teenage flopping about and random clumsy poking that the kids are calling sex these days, but it just doesn't compare to the kind of great sex you can have with someone you're comfortable with and care about. Truth be told, there's a similar feeling of achievement to be had when you see that look on your partner's face and know you just rocked her (his, whatever) world. But with the added bonus that it was pretty damn good for you, too.

    Which is not to say that you should completely forego the more intellectual achievements in favor of getting it on. But, in my view, a life spent never having good sex is missing something just as much as a life spent never creating anything. You really ought to have both.
  • by Hatta (162192) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @12:18PM (#20072543) Journal
    I'd actually like to say a bit about that. Much has been made of the fact that there are those guys in every city, in every walk of life, who want to have sex with teenagers. Usually this is spun as "omg predators everywhere!", but that's hardly a rational analysis. Do you know why there are so many of those people? Because it's entirely natural and normal for a sexually mature male to want to have sex with a pubescent female. And there's nothing wrong with that.

    Now I'm not saying they don't catch any deviants. Obviously they do. There's a lot of social conditioning against our natural desires, and it takes someone somewhat deviant to ignore that. I'm just saying that these guys are not sick freaks because they want to have sex with teenagers. Most of them are just lonely people with natural desires who think they've found a willing partner and made the wrong decision. The way they are treated by Dateline, the legal system, and the general public is more disgusting than anything they'd do with a willing partner.
  • They should have lower STD rates, too.
  • by SIIHP (1128921) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @12:20PM (#20072625) Journal
    Nothing like avoiding the good things in life because you're afraid of the minuscule possibility that something might happen.

  • by ookabooka (731013) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @12:24PM (#20072713)

    I think your grammar and spelling is a better indicator of your probability of getting laid. You, my friend, are quite sure to "get some."

    Leave it to a grammar Nazi to find the silver lining.
  • A counter view (Score:5, Insightful)

    by snowwrestler (896305) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @12:27PM (#20072797)
    First, I'm not going to call you a homosexual (not that there's anything wrong with that!).

    I'll just point out that from a scientific perspective, we are animals, and from a genetic point of view, reproduction is the pinnacle of our existence. From an evolutionary standpoint, there's not much purpose to our lives if we don't pass on our genes. I know that not every smart person is scientifically inclined, but I think it's safe to say that scientific understanding takes intelligence. It is not unintelligent to recognize the importance of sex in human lives.

    From a non-scientific standpoint, I think there is an important debate, common to us all, about what provides the greatest satisfaction and enjoyment (and meaning) in life. Is it achievement, or is it connection? I think it's safe to say that you'll find many smart, successful people who nevertheless believe that their love and family is the most satisfying and important part of their lives. The idea that sex/achievement is a binary choice is false. Einstein and Hemingway and Picasso (and etc) all had lovers.

    From a strictly physical standpoint, sex can create feelings that are unachievable any other way. But the same is true from an emotional standpoint as well--there's no closer emotional connection that can be made to another person. Physical intimacy is the distinguishing characteristic of love, of partner from friend. I don't find anything sad about that.
  • by Epizeuxis (1135895) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @12:27PM (#20072803)
    I think most of you are flailing about on the wrong lines, which doesn't make sense if you are all supposed to be so smart; then again, maybe it does make sense if you are all supposed to be flirtatiously inept.

    Basically I want to draw your attention to this: opportunities for sexual encounters are derived from social interactions; the more people you meet and the more you talk and meet up with the people you know, the greater your chances of locating a person willing to enlist you amongst their romantic prospects.

    Therefore, sex is a result of popularity, which explains some of the intelligence rating questions.

    If you are very, very dim you probably have no social skills and have few friends, and thus meet up with few people. When you do, you probably have very little of interest to say and nobody thinks you are particularly attractive.

    However, if you are very, very smart, you probably also have a restricted social group. This is because the elitism of the upper echelons of cleverness prevents them from forming a wide circle of associates with similar interests, et cetera. In other words, if you are a geek you are likely to engage in some graceless enthusiasm about a particular area of geekiness which only a limited range of others also get all bouncy about. A lot of people who have no particular interests in anything intelligent (those from the middle marsh of intelligence ratings) will assume you boring and unsociable because they cannot indulge in the same topics that you do. Thus the range of available partners is reduced, so the likelihood of sexual advancement is less and sexual realisation is delayed.

    I also want to point out that this does not mean being a geek means being less sexy (as is the common stereotype). This just means that very few people are prepared to accept that you could be sexy because of the overwhelming crime you have committed by being a geek.

    To be honest, I think everyone already knew this, they just weren't thinking about the situation properly because it either seemed better to use intelligence as an excuse for virginity or because they wanted to assert moral reasoning behind choice of abstinence. Ok, fair enough, but the statistics must depend to some degree on lack of choice, because smart teens are often just as horny as average teens. True, concentrating on work can lead to lack of interest (I revised for about 400 hours for my A-level exams: I KNOW that feeling), but it doesn't crush it completely. Verily, clever teenagers lack the opportunity and biological pressure to obey their reproductive instincts because social occasions just don't arise with the same kind of frequency.
  • by sevinkey (448480) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @12:28PM (#20072819)
    Anyone with a 160+ IQ would know extrapolation runs a high risk of bullshit results.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @12:32PM (#20072877)
    While I think your whole "commitment" spiel is admirable I will say that sexual compatibility is a very important part of any committed relationship. You can totally click on every level but if the sexual spark isn't there your relationship will either be miserable or it won't last. That is why I think a lot of people end up in miserable relationships because of the whole "I'm saving myself" BS.

    So yeah you shouldn't jump into bed with every random skank you run across but you should definitely take a roll in the hay with any intelligent, beguiling woman who intrigues you. Because if it isn't good there, nothing else will matter. Trust me, I know. Learn from my mistakes!
  • by hellfire (86129) <deviladv.gmail@com> on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @12:33PM (#20072885) Homepage
    Obviously as the high IQ virgins should realize, correlation does not equal causation.

    Personally I think this has more to do with:

    1) The social stigmas and rewards we put on sex and having sex
    2) The activities available that interest kids and adults other than sexual activity
    3) The Emotional quotient of the parties involved.

    1) Lots of movies extol the "virtue" of getting laid at the big party. At the same time, religious groups, scared parents, and sex ed teachers, put the fear of doom and gloom not to have sex. This conflict simply puts different groups at odds. Jocks tend to be less intelligent and more likely to want to have sex because that's their culture.

    On the other hand, everyone remembers "one time, at band camp..." from American Pie. While most kids would find it disgusting to masturbate with musical instruments, Band is a sexual proving ground as well, and I'd be willing to bed band kids have a tendency towards higher IQ as well.

    2) If you are involved in 6 clubs, band, art, and taking 4 AP courses for which you have to study every night, you might not have a lot of time for sex. If you don't think these things are important and have fewer activities and take fewer hard classes, you're tendency to think about sex is probably much higher.

    3) The jock who says "If you love me you'll have sex with me" has a low EQ because that's a lame line and you know he's just trying to get laid. The girl who goes along with it, also has a low EQ because she has low self esteem and gets sucked into that. If a Jock tried it on a nerd girl, it depends on how she feels about herself. She could could have a 200 IQ and get straight As, but if she's the nerd girl, she's probably not popular, and might have esteem issues that make her think that this might make her popular or at least get with a good guy.
  • by RoffleTheWaffle (916980) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @12:37PM (#20072967) Journal
    Let me tell you a little story about my senior English class when I was in high school.

    I was in the first-period senior English class. While my English grades and test scores were among the best in the school, I opted out of going to the advanced English classes because of the hellish workloads encountered there. This meant I got stuck with the average Indiana teenage crowd, and let's just say that most people here can't read so well. It's amazing, really. I really want to know how functionally illiterate kids wind up in their senior year of high school, but I digress, there's more to this story than that.

    There were only about ten people in that class of thirty that could read well. There were also literally seven pregnant girls in there. I don't know why they all got shoveled into that class - it may have been the time of day, and they always got to leave early, too - but they were all in there. They were the dumbest girls I've ever seen. None of them could read. I'm not talking about Shakespeare or something, I'm talking about the simplest shit. They couldn't pronounce words with more than two syllables, they didn't understand or even attempt to grasp what they were reading, nothing. Totally brain-dead, with kids on the way. Seven stupid, pregnant girls were in that class, and it was nothing short of soul-crushing to see that not only were people like this allowed to breathe the same air that I do, but that they were also having more sex than I was - and to the detriment of society, breeding as a result.

    With brains like that, they'll be next to unemployable in the job market here. They're going to spend the rest of their miserable, worthless lives on welfare, no doubt failing to raise their bastard kids properly. Those kids will then enter into society and likely perpetuate the stupidity of their parents while having yet more bastard welfare children themselves. Meanwhile, I'm going to be a middle aged tax-payer, looking down on these pitiful new entrants to society and their kin, and while cursing their reliance upon the welfare system, I will lament that my penis has by then received so little use.

    High school was terrible.
  • by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert42@gmail.com> on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @12:41PM (#20073067) Homepage Journal
    Here's something grades are a great measure of: Spending your time studying instead of spending your time in relationships with the opposite sex that you're not ready for anyway.
  • Re:Idiocracy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Fweeky (41046) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @01:06PM (#20073547) Homepage
    Duh, it's post-singularity fiction; the superintelligent AI's and uploads left behind automated factories to produce that stuff so they wouldn't feel as guilty about leaving their hick cousins behind.
  • by Hatta (162192) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @01:11PM (#20073653) Journal
    The 2% figure is not 2% per use. The figure is: 2% of women who used condoms as their only form of birth control are pregnant after 1 year. Assuming they had sex more than once a year, the figure per use is going to be much less. And it's a good bet that a lot of those women aren't using the condoms correctly. You know, using 2 condoms, or having sex, pulling out, putting on a condom and finishing, that sort of thing.

    And abortions are 100% effective.
  • by Asphalt (529464) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @01:12PM (#20073667)
    I found it horrifying, and would rather have stayed a virgin for the rest of my life than try to build a relationship with someone like that.

    Why not simply nail her and have the best of both worlds?

  • Re:Not quite (Score:5, Insightful)

    by griffjon (14945) <{GriffJon} {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @01:13PM (#20073689) Homepage Journal
    Actually I think you're on to something that the FA glosses over (or doesn't have strong enough statistical support to claim, perhaps). Do the most normal people have the most sex, by benefit of having the widest selection of potential partners that are similar to them? I remember the dating pool of people with IQs over ~110; it was ... slim and awkward pickings. If amount of sex correlates with number of potential partners, and potential partners similarly is connected to people "about the same as you" on various scales, of which IQ is easily measurable, then those in the middle of a bell curve on IQ have a wider community of potential partners and are more likely to have more sex.

    That's a lot of connections, so I'm not surprised that it's not brought out. Nevertheless, IQ as a measure may just be a proxy for an underlying mechanism.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @01:20PM (#20073809)
    Risks of getting caught? You're 20, not 15.
  • by Valdrax (32670) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @01:24PM (#20073897)
    Not really. They were more popular than they are today, but athletes, pretty boys, soldiers, and politicians had their good share of attention too. Scientists who made something fascinated were well-liked, but your average smart guy who hadn't yet had a break was just as "boring" as any geek today.

    Let's not forget that women of intellect weren't well valued either. Famous women scientists were considered a fascinating aberration but not the kind of girl you'd want to marry -- after all men were expected to be the heads of the family, and you wouldn't want too "headstrong" and "independent" of a woman.

    There is nothing new under the sun.
  • by OrangeTide (124937) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @01:36PM (#20074105) Homepage Journal
    There are plenty of ugly people of the opposite sex. Being ugly does not stop you from finding a partner. Insecurity about your own hideous appearance is really the only obstacle.
  • by ThousandStars (556222) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @01:41PM (#20074203) Homepage
    that not only were people like this allowed to breathe the same air

    If only laws [du.edu] prevented that! Surely eugenics [beloit.edu] is the answer, or perhaps some other form of law [wikipedia.org] to keep the higher-quality people from those lower-quality ones.

    They're going to spend the rest of their miserable, worthless lives on welfare, no doubt failing to raise their bastard kids properly.

    Who are you to say that their lives will be miserable and worthless? To those living them, perhaps their lives are rich and provide emotional sustenance, or seem worthy and interesting. It is dangerous to try and judge someone from the outside, and if you hold the rest of humanity in such low regard, perhaps you should think about what is happening in your own life that you castigate others as you do.

    Robertson Davies [wordpress.com] sometimes writes about such people who are left behind by time or technology or society, and writes about them with great sympathy. In The Cunning Man [wordpress.com] a doctor treats patients with more than just science, and in Conversation with Robertson Davies this exchange occurs:

    Cameron: Don't those novels show a fairly strong current of sympathy for some aspects of that [cultural] tradition?

    Davies: It is sympathy for the people -- not, I think the tradition -- because they are people. They're not caricatures, they're not oddities, they're not cardboard. They bleed when you stick them and they weep when they are miserable, and their sorrows and their distresses are made sometimes more poignant by the fact that they don't know why things are happening to them.

    I will lament that my penis has by then received so little use.

    Most women, I suspect, would choose a carefree bad boy over an angry, uptight Republican with a chip on his shoulder; Dan Savage [thestranger.com] makes a similar point in some of his columns. If you think ignorant fools can get laid so easily but someone as perspicacious as you wants to and can't, who is smart?

  • by man_ls (248470) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @01:46PM (#20074305)
    Sex is for reproduction, and we have evolved beyond that.

    Modern medical knowledge and a bit of imaginative technology has resulted in the fact that sex and reproduction are only connected if you allow them to be. Various methods of birth control which can be used by both genders ensure that - barring a statistical anomaly - you'll never result in a scare/accident. You're free to have pretty much all the sex for all the other rewards that sex provides, beyond just passing on genetic material.

    This doesn't mean promiscuity, necessarily (this entire postulate was put forth by my girlfriend, and I thoroughly agree with it, and she's never been one who leaned towards promiscuity) but it does mean that one shouldn't hold sex up on such a pedestal.
  • by digitalchinky (650880) <dtchky@gmail.com> on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @01:50PM (#20074387)
    I had a very similar outlook to women when I was your age. I took it one step further though, I absolutely *knew* I was smarter than everyone else, arrogant little prick that I was, and I spoke up at every opportunity just to let people know about it. Nicknamed the 'professor', it took me a lot of years to realise it was actually a very appropriate insult for who I was. I regret being that way, no actual friends, terrible loneliness, and a very real fear of the opposite sex. Idiot I was. Then one day I got to thinking - outside watching a thunderstorm - it's spectacular in its own way, even beautiful in fact, so why the need to tell anyone within earshot about step leaders and all the other crud that goes with it, why not just enjoy it for what it is, in silence. So I started listening rather than talking.

    I wont bore you with the details, but life is good. I do wish I had led a more *normal* childhood, one where I got dumped by the odd girlfriend or 60, and maybe even sometimes the other way around. I would have grown up with a far better outlook on the world. The difference now, the more I learn, the more I know I don't know anything.

    Love and sex are not at all the same thing, sex might well be primal, but you know, naked tribal chicks, what's not to like about them! It's sex, no analysis necessary beyond the 'animalistic' lusty goodness that it is. (theoretically speaking *ahem* - other half passing by computer)
  • by EsabaCZ (921190) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @02:03PM (#20074661)
    Its not that the smarter you are, the less SEX you "choose" not to have. It more along the lines that at the age, being smart just isn't attractive to the opposite sex. While the less brilliant teenagers (Jocks.... usually) are more attractive to the opposite sex and hence, have more sex.
  • by ChronosWS (706209) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @02:24PM (#20074999)
    While many of your assertions are true, such as sex being disgusting if you think about it (which is why sex is something 'done' not 'thought',) various moral dilemmas and difficulties understanding the benefits of such relationships, I think it is important as an intelligent person to understand that these interactions are essential human interactions. To ignore them is to ignore a very real part of your own humanity and will place you in an inferior position with respect to the rest of the world when you do have to deal with people. It's like walking through life being deaf or blind. Except in this case you can choose not to be deaf or blind.

    To pur some of your fears in perspective, I bet you would have NO qualms whatsoever about tackling a very difficult engineering problem. Such a problem likely scares the crap out of your average person, whether for fear of failure, or an unwillingess to expose themselves as having too little knowledge to tackle it. What if you took the same drive and intelligence and applied it to the problem of understanding and interacting with your fellow humans? After all, if the low-brows can manage to deal with the moral dilemmas, safety issues and all the other "complex" interactions, surely somewhat with your enhanced grey-matter can as well...

    Oh, and those social skills... they are skills, and like all skills must be practiced. Get out and practice them. Your reward will be a richer, fuller life.
  • by ktappe (747125) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @02:43PM (#20075285)

    People weigh odds differently and in my view the odds are not something I wish to play with.
    You play with the odds every single day of your life. As the original poster noted, you "play" with the odds by driving a car....or flying in an airplane....or using a lawnmower....or eating. NOTHING you do is safe. That you are singling out sex as the one thing to avoid "playing" the odds with even though statictics clearly show all other activities I list above are more likely to injure you indicates you have a different actual reason for avoiding sex and are just using STD's as a cover.

    To be clear: There is nothing inherently wrong with avoiding sex, but telling others that you are avoiding it for unsupportable reasons and implying they should do the same is not right.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @02:54PM (#20075493)

    So you married the first woman that came along that didn't gag during oral sex
    There, fixed it for you. And who wouldn't?
  • Re:The question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by merreborn (853723) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @02:56PM (#20075523) Journal

    expecting sex to be some magical experience with your soul mate is really setting yourself up for disappointment.


    I lost my virginity to my wife two years before we got married. I wasn't disappointed in the least. And I've never once regretted the fact that the only sexual experiences I've had have been meaningful and fulfilling.

    One day you're going to meet someone you love and respect and want to stay with forever. You want to "sow your wild oats" before that, or you'll spend the rest of your life wondering what sex with other women would be like. It's a lot easer to know you've made the right choice when you've tried a few of the other options.


    Once you've made love with someone you truly love for a few years, the act itself becomes increasingly less important, in my experience. It's not about the sex, it's about sharing the experience with someone who I'm very close to. Sure, at a very base, primal level, I'm curious about sex with other women. But then I realize that sex without the love that my wife and I share could never be as fulfilling, period.

    I understand that not every guy is like that. Some guys will spend their whole lives sowing their wild oats. Different strokes for different folks. I won't judge those people for living their lives the way they see fit. I just ask that you return the favor.
  • by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @02:59PM (#20075583)
    The parent poster is correct.

    The question is "Life of hot sex" vs "Life of true love". You really can't have both.

    Now the kicker... for 75% of everyone- true love turns out to be unattainable even given your best efforts.

    Society just doesn't support it. And girls are unfaithful in large numbers with sexy, cocky, funny guys (I read up to 10% of paternity tests come out with a different father).

    Emotional warmth is great but it is also pretty damn dangerous.

    Endless hot sex eventually turns ice cold without some emotional intimacy.

    You can't win either way. Because whatever you are not getting is what you hunger for.

  • by EgoWumpus (638704) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @03:02PM (#20075625)

    Sex is pretty complicated. Not really the act itself - though there is a fair amount of understanding what goes where when to have the act be as satisfying as it can be. I mean more the relationship surrounding sex. Sex is, after all, one of the most intimate acts you can undertake - it can cut to the core of your personality if you let it, or you can guard that core at the expense of the experience.

    My point is this; I know plenty of people who wanted certain things out of their sex life but who never achieved it, because they were either afraid of rejection and so did not admit to it, or they were already committed and did not wish to rock the boat. Sleeping with people for whom you feel comfortable having an intimate relationship is not an act that you should necessarily 'reserve' for only the very most worthy situation. Sometimes it's better to learn how to be close to people, and to learn how that extreme closeness affects you, affects them, affects your relationship with them, and with others. These learning experiences are generally categorized as reckless, but I think that usually - 95% of the time - they're far from it. They're natural, and humans learn from it.

    Why is it, then, that there is such a prevalence of the mindset that if you never do something, the first person you do it with will be the perfect person? That it somehow increases your chances of finding a working relationship? If anything, the people I know whom have had a great deal of sex are more in tune with how it affects their relationship. I'm not advocating being enslaved to your loins - but there are multiple ways for that enslavement to incur. Letting them run rampant is one; never learning mastery over them is another.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @03:12PM (#20075779)
    Who is smarter?

    I'd say the ones who have no children at all and keep all of their money ;)
  • Why lie? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by SIIHP (1128921) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @03:47PM (#20076311) Journal
    First, it's cervical cancer, not ovarian. That alone should be enough to show you're full of shit.

    But just to emphasize the point, the virus is not 100% fatal, nor does it cause cancer in 100% of the cases.

    That, combined with your apparently deliberate misrepresentation of the pregnancy risks after a broken condom makes me wonder what your agenda is, and why you're deliberately posting false information to support a point that others have repeatedly destroyed.

    Why are you lying? What is your motivation to lie to people about sex, and why do you think you're justified in doing so?

    Please don't respond that you didn't lie, I gave you one example and can think of two others in this thread. It's right there for the world to see, so denying it isn't going to get you anywhere.
  • by Machtyn (759119) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @03:48PM (#20076327) Homepage Journal
    the whole "I'm saving myself" BS.

    The problem is this is not BS. Even if you take a "roll in the hay" with that special someone of the moment... who's to say she hasn't taken a roll in the hay with someone previously of whom was her previous special someone of the moment. And since that previous special someone turned out not to be so special... who's to say that person was not so careful about placing his, umm, unit anywhere else.

    It's not so hard to wait. I did until I was 29 and married, my wife also waited and she is older than I. Neither of us have to worry about the other.
  • by heinousjay (683506) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @04:00PM (#20076519) Journal
    That's just a sad thing to push on other people, though. Obviously you're not that comfortable with sex ("his, umm, unit") but that's not a good reason to evangelize your way to others.
  • by Guppy06 (410832) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @04:22PM (#20076935)
    "That is the only time in your life where you'll be able to (in some cases legally) to screw teen girls while everything is tight and where it is supposed to be."

    First off, not strictly true. In case you don't remember your own teenaged years, girls that age tend to prefer older guys. How much older depends on the girl, of course, but you rarely see such a girl dating a boy younger than her, and it's certainly not unheard of for a teenaged girl to lust after a man twice her age.

    With that being said, the bodies of teenaged girls tend to be attached to the minds of teenaged girls, so why would you even want to? Yes, they have youthful bodies, but that comes with youthful inexperience and they've yet to have a reason to learn to do anything more than lie there like a dead fish (after all, they don't have to do anything to get guys like you beating down their door).

    If you're looking for something more than just stroking your own ego ("ZOMG! Bagged a teenager!") and are interested in, you know, actually good sex, you're better off with a woman around 30, one who knows what she's doing, knows what she likes, and doesn't have all the hang-ups and teenaged bullshit that the younger ones come with.

    "Gravity takes a toll on the old human body as you get older. And with people getting obese at earlier and earlier ages....get some fun in while you and potential partners are in good shape."

    A little bit of exercise goes a long way, and, of course, the sex itself is pretty good exercise. And, again, it's difficult to have "some fun" when you're still not quite sure what "fun" is, let alone how to go about getting there.

    "Especially true for guys. As a teen, you are in your prime and best years for sex...stamina, endurance."

    There's more to (good) sex than just stamina and endurance, and it's relatively simple for your average Slashdotter to maintain their teenaged stamina and endurance by doing the exercise and such that they never bothered to do as a teenager. Yes, more work, but, as I keep saying, older women are so much more worth it (to the point where I'd recommend them even for teenaged boys, they will be so grateful and appreciative).

    "Do it now and do it as often with as much variety as you can."

    Quantity versus quality?

    "and your selection of partners will be older and more worn looking too. "

    If those are the only qualities you're looking for, you've yet to find out what good sex is.

    "I'm glad I got as much as I did growing up...wish I'd had even more..."

    Perhaps your problem is that, as women get older, they realize that the sex you're thinking back to wasn't really all that good for them, and the worthwhile partners your age have learned to avoid guys like you and repeating past mistakes.
  • by Archangel Michael (180766) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @04:47PM (#20077309) Journal
    At the risk of being labeled a religious nutjob ..... I think your sentiments are actually quite old .....

    Proverbs 31:30 Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.
  • Re:Condom Split? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Slashdot Parent (995749) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @04:56PM (#20077441)

    (Of course, I might be influenced by the enforced abstinence due to my wife's pregnancy... ;)
    My wife's pregnant, and there is no abstinence! Last go around, she had a fascist OB/GYN for awhile who kept saying, "no sex for 2 weeks." She has a new OB now.

    Be that as it may, if you approach in terms of possibilities instead of probabilities, you just become a hypochondriac recluse who will be driven to insanity.

    "There is the possibility that I will have a heart attack if I don't exercise."

    "There is the possibility that I will break my neck if I exercise."

    "There is the possibility that I choke on my food if I eat."

    "There is the possibility that I get hit by a car if I cross the street."

    "There is the possibility that I get struck by lightning if I go outside."

    I could go on forever. There is always the possibility that something dreadful is going to befall you. You have to just let it go or you will be paralyzed.

    Remember, even if the condom does split, your chances of HIV infection are 1/300 that the girl is HIV+ and 1/1000 that an HIV+ girl can transmit it to a guy. You are going to have to have a hell of a lot of unprotected sex before you get HIV.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @05:56PM (#20078243)
    I don't think attractiveness is everything. I see many couples where one (but usually both) partners are not all that attractive by societies standards.

    People don't just bump into each other and have sex -- they talk first. It's well known that people seek others that are similar to themselves or their parents -- that goes for intellect too. If you take a person who loves talking about math with an IQ of 140 and another person who loves talking about more mainstream things with an IQ of 100, there probably won't be a great connection.

    The problem is that most people in the world have average intellect. There are simply more mates that average IQ people match with.

    At places like MIT, where basically everyone has a high IQ, there is another problem: most are male. In such environments attractiveness plays a great role I think.

    Ask yourself this: Would you want to be with someone much smarter or much stupider than you?
  • by okmijnuhb (575581) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @07:38PM (#20079297)
    It certainly shows in the current state of the world, that stupid people are breeding faster than smart ones.
    Kill each other!
  • by ksheff (2406) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @07:59PM (#20079501) Homepage
    wtf does C, G, Xl, Xr, X, A stand for.
  • by Lemmy Caution (8378) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @09:47PM (#20080433) Homepage
    The real obstacle is poor social skills.

    There is also an unfortunate misconception: nerds and geeks aren't just smart people. They're smart people with social deficits and, often, low cultural capital. There are smart people who are also popular, charismatic, and confident.

    Life's not fair.

I judge a religion as being good or bad based on whether its adherents become better people as a result of practicing it. - Joe Mullally, computer salesman

Working...