Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
NINE-AND-A-HALF MONTHS. Like Dana, I find it refreshing to have a real life evangelical writing in a top op-ed page. But something about Michael Gerson's op-ed, which took as its subject the studies showing mainline Protestant teens have sex later than evangelical teens, struck me as odd. As Gerson explores the issue, he's enthused to learn that this isn't really about which religion is superior at promoting chastity, but simple demographics. Protestants are richer:
When the statistics on teen sexuality are controlled for social and economic factors, conservative Protestant teens first have sex at about the same time as their peers -- the average is midway through their 16th year. That is hardly comforting to conservative Protestant parents, who would expect more bang for the bucks they spend funding Sunday schools -- well, actually, less bang.But these numbers shift when controlled for religious intensity. For those who attend church often, sexual activity is delayed until nearly 17, while nominal evangelicals begin at 16.2 years, earlier than the national average.
As a coastal elite, I find that utterly baffling. The impressive abstinence gains offered by fervent religious commitment amount to nine-and-a-half months? Why do we even care about doing that? I understand if you want to make the marker marriage, as that at least has a biblical pedigree. But I genuinely don't understand the celebration, or even interest, in a delay so small, and so utterly devoid of obvious social benefits.
--Ezra Klein
COMMENTS (10)
Er--evangelicals aren't Protestant? I think you mean so-called *mainline* Protestants.
Posted by: David | July 27, 2007 11:13 AM
In the case of evangelicals you are talking not just about delaying sexual activity for 9 1/2 months, but also parenthood.
Also - I wouldn't be surprised that one of the key class differences for mainline protestant teens is that they're getting some decent sex education in school that the evangelicals aren't.
Posted by: dukej | July 27, 2007 11:22 AM
Those people are so obsessed with sex that this stuff matters to them. Losers.
Posted by: oss | July 27, 2007 11:55 AM
True, the difference between 16.2 and 17 is insignificant, but if you believed that there was an age at which it was very bad for kids to have sex, -- say, 14 -- then the increase to 17 would probably (though not definitely) mean that fewer kids are having sex at 14. Not endorsing that view, just pointing out that as a statistical fact it could matter more than the small increase in the mean would suggest.
Posted by: Mark Schmitt | July 27, 2007 1:02 PM
This may be a quibbling point, but when Gerson says that when controlled for social and economic factors, conservative Protestants first have sex "midway through their sixteenth year," that to me means at the age of 15.5. Your first year is 0-1, your second 1-2, etc. He then says that nominal evalangelicals average out at 16.2, slightly earlier than their peers. So he is either misspeaking (or miswriting) when he says "midway through their sixteenth year" or nominal evangelicals are actually starting later, on average, than their peers. For whatever it's worth...
Posted by: Toby | July 27, 2007 2:21 PM
The nine and half months is especially meaningless in that this group is most likely to have no idea about birth control given their parents opposition to normal sex ed. So their chances for an unwanted pregnancy or STD may be much higher.
Posted by: Col Bat Guano | July 27, 2007 2:28 PM
Gearson writes:
. Is that not just another way of saying "it takes a village..."? I seem to recall someone being savaged by conservatives for taking that position.Posted by: dwight Meredith | July 27, 2007 2:34 PM
I think Mark's got it right. I don't believe so much in a firm age cut-off, but there is a clearly a level of maturity associated with the decisionmaking about whether to become a parent, as well as making one's own choices about sex instead of caving to peer and date pressure. Thus, while I do not want to see the average age get up towards 20 or lots of people believing that they must not do it until they are married, a jump from 16.2 to 17 could very well be a good thing, if it means that more people are making the choice to commence such activity at a time when they are more likely to use protection and more able to resist pressure.
Posted by: Dilan Esper | July 27, 2007 3:18 PM
I'm as anti teen sex as the next overage prude but I have to say that a person might well be old enough to choose to engage responsibly in sex-with-contraception and not be old enough to engage in sex with the intention of becoming a parent. Dilan Esper's comment up above is the jumping off point, for me, on this point. The "level of maturity" necessitated before a person chooses to become a parent is utterly different from the level of maturity required for a person to engage in consensual sex with an age appropriate (or hell, an age inappropriate) partner. In fact I think a great argument can be made that anything that prevents teens from acessing safe and truthful information about contraception and contraceptive practices is immoral since it creates a situation in which individuals who under no stretch of the imagination can be ready to be parents may be forced by lack of abortion rights to become parents.
aimai
Posted by: aimai | July 28, 2007 7:18 PM
But I genuinely don't understand the celebration, or even interest, in a delay so small, and so utterly devoid of obvious social benefits.
But it does help shelter proponents of things like "abstinence education" from unpleasant realities. Just like "homosexuality can be cured" avoids dealing honestly with the issue of sexual orientation. Faith-based, indeed.
Posted by: ronin | July 30, 2007 9:35 PM