mental_floss magazine
SUBSCRIBE >
GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONS >
DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS >
subscriber services >
Recently, we had a lively discussion here about smart kids’ predisposition to depression. Lots of people had theories on why such a predisposition might exist, but we think we may have found the answer in a study entitled “Smart Teens Don’t Have Sex (or Kiss Much Either).” It’s one of those studies that isn’t that surprising on the surface, but the devil’s always in the details, isn’t it? Here are some highlights:
• Students with IQs above 100 and below 70 were significantly less likely to have had intercourse than those in between.
• Each additional point of IQ increased the odds of virginity by 2.7% for males and 1.7% for females.
• It’s not just home runs they’re talking about, either: a higher IQ decreased the likelihood of romantic contact in any sense, from holding hands to kissing, across the board.
• For males with IQs between 70-90 only 50.2% were virgin, whereas those with IQs above 110 were 70.3% virgins.
Even more interesting, the blog Gene Expression points to a 2001 campus sex survey to illustrate that this trend doesn’t end with high school, though it looks at institutions and majors rather than IQ scores. For instance:
• By age 19, 87% of college students have had sex. At MIT, it’s only 51%. (Furthermore, only 65% of MIT graduate students have had sex.)
• At Wellesley College, 0% of studio art majors were virgins, but 83% of biochem and math majors were.
I think there’s much to mine here: why is this so? Are smart folk simply less physically attractive than “regular” people? Are they less confident? Are they, perhaps, less interested? (The college sex survey also notes that while 95% of US men and 70% of women masturbate, this number is only 68% of men and 20% of women at MIT.) Has anyone attended a school where this sexual hierarchy didn’t apply?
Comments (51)
Comment
- Follow mental_floss
I went to one of those snotty liberal arts colleges that occupies a single-digit slot in the US News ratings. Some smart and frustrated individual explained it all.
On a library carrel, someone had scrawled “Why are [this college's] girls so ugly?”
Someone else (not me, I swear) took the time to respond with a Euclidean proof. It went like this:
Ugly = don’t get asked on dates
= more time to study and participate in extra-curricular activities
= Better grades and test scores
= Admission to [this college]
QED, indeed
posted by plannerben on 8-1-2007 at 9:19 am
Yeah, I’m pretty smart.
High school sucked.
posted by Seamus on 8-1-2007 at 9:30 am
I went to an academically advanced High School (all advanced placement classes basically) and it really seemed like no one had sex. It wasn’t until my freshman year of college that my core group of friends started finding people to date and have sex with.
I have no idea why that is, but it does seem to be true. I do know that its not from the people looking bad because many of my friends are gorgeous (one is currently a Ford model).
posted by Annie on 8-1-2007 at 9:49 am
I think it is probably because those with higher intelligence tend to spend more of their time studying — it’s the higher priority — and their social life gets moved to the back burner. It might also be that smarter people put more pressure on themselves to succeed at everything, and therefore feel a greater sense of pressure to date the “right” person, rather than testing the waters with a lot of different people.
posted by RK on 8-1-2007 at 10:20 am
I went to a high school where many of the really poplular people were athletic, smart (took Honors and AP classes) and had sex (and/or kissed). Of course there where the unpopular smart people (who maybe didn’t have the sex) and the popular not so smart people (who maybe did have the sex). It just seems as if the number of popular, smart, sex having people was high.
posted by not tellin' on 8-1-2007 at 10:28 am
Once this article goes mainstream, I’m sure we’ll see the number of math majors at MIT drop like a rock while the number of art majors at Wellesley will skyrocket. I am 49, but now I am considering picking up an additional degree in art at Wellesley.
posted by Phil on 8-1-2007 at 10:29 am
My friends and I were the smart girls at my highschool and most of us never dated and those that did were the ones asked the guys out. It wasn’t that we were ugly, we were a darn attractive bunch of girls but guys just did not show interest in us. Now I find out it was because they were to intimidated by us to ask; they were sure we would turn them down. This resulted in my entire group of friends have an inferiority complex.
posted by Sally on 8-1-2007 at 10:48 am
When I was in college I took an official (not online) IQ test and scored 165, so I should have been well within the virigin category, but I lost mine in high school…
I think its a lack of social skills that keeps folks from accomplishing these goals, and unfortunately it is also the same lack of social skills that makes shy people tend to go into science and technology where they believe human interaction will be lower. Or they can play to their strengths (technical know how), and avoid the scary social human interaction.
Still don’t get the masturbation statistic, and I tend not to believe it. It seems more likely to me that a shy person would be less likely to admit to this but everyone does it.
posted by Scott on 8-1-2007 at 10:50 am
it seemed to me that in high school, it’s not that the smart kids aren’t dating or having sex, it’s that they are far more discrete.
as for the hierarchy– i was a biochem major at a midwestern school known for its nerdy reputation. in that environment where EVERYONE was a nerd or geek (even the fraternity and sorority kids were pre-meds or engineers), the inferiority complexes subsided, self-confidence bloomed, and everyone had a good time.
posted by nina on 8-1-2007 at 11:21 am
I agree with Scott about the masturbation statistic. There is an old joke, that has quite a bit of truth in it, that says, “90% of people masturbate. The other 10% are lying.”
I also lost my virginity in high school, and have tested, on two different official tests, as 142 and 157, so this obviously isn’t across the board.
There is a social stigma to being seen as a genius or a nerd, especially for females. It seemed to me that few people were willing to date the teacher’s pet or the nerds. On the other hand, at least in my school, the smart girls didn’t want to date the smart boys and lower their social standing even further.
posted by Caleythia on 8-1-2007 at 11:32 am
i’ve always had the intuition that part of that intelligence is an increased emotional awareness and sensitivity and this creates additional barriers to intimacy.
or maybe we didn’t drink enough beers.
posted by greg on 8-1-2007 at 11:40 am
Maybe kids that aren’t focusing on sex become smarter for that very reason?
posted by Edward on 8-1-2007 at 11:41 am
Maybe kids that aren’t focusing on sex become smarter for that very reason?
posted by Edward on 8-1-2007 at 11:41 am
Maybe mom was right… you do lose brain cells through sex and masturbation…
I love the grad student report from MIT… good thing I didn’t get in!!
posted by Courtney on 8-1-2007 at 12:15 pm
“How many women realize, even now, that Kinsey’s 5,940 case histories of American women showed that the number of females reaching orgasm in marriage, and the number of females reaching orgasm nearly 100 per cent of the time, WAS related to education, but the more educated the woman, the greater chance of sexual fulfillment. The woman with only a grade-school education was more likely never to experience orgasm, while the woman who finished college, and who went on to graduate or professional school, was far more likely to achieve full orgasm nearly 100 per cent of the time.”
-Betty Friedan, “The Feminine Mystique”
So rejoice, eggheads! You may be having less sex, but you definately know how to enjoy it more!
posted by Mere on 8-1-2007 at 12:26 pm
I’m no Miss America, but I’m no Broom Hilda, either. I never had a boyfriend in high school and wasn’t kissed until I was 18 and had graduated. Boys are just plain afraid of girls who are as smart or smarter than they are. Geeks aren’t afraid of smart girls; however, since they tend to be lacking in social expertise, geeks have girl friends but not usually girlfriends.
Things improved for me in college (I went to a small liberal-arts college with very high academic standards where we were ALL geeks). I still didn’t have sex, but I met smart, funny men who were great to be around and who had better social skills because they could actually socialize comfortably and not be harassed by jocks or made fun of by the soon-to-be-dropouts.
I’ve met plenty of men who seem to like dumb women (or those who act dumb), but I have yet to meet a woman who likes dumb men. Perhaps we’re not all saving ourselves for marriage, but we may very well be saving ourselves for Mr. Bright. (Incidentally, I married a wonderful geek, and I am the envy of numerous female friends.)
So smart people have less sex early on. Big deal. We make up for it in quality later.
posted by ansav on 8-1-2007 at 1:20 pm
In the right situation, the “smart people” effect on sex can be almost entirely reversed. I went to a boarding school (read: freedom from parents and judgment from the people you grew up with) for gifted kids (ranging from a bit above average to off the charts). I don’t have any official numbers on how many kids at our school were virgins, but it was definitely less than 70%. And there was plenty of kissing going on–I should know, I saw a lot of it. This leads me to believe that this effect has less to do with innate qualities of intelligent people and more to do with the social situation intelligent people find themselves in.
posted by kaycee on 8-1-2007 at 1:28 pm
“I think its a lack of social skills that keeps folks from accomplishing these goals, and unfortunately it is also the same lack of social skills that makes shy people tend to go into science and technology where they believe human interaction will be lower. Or they can play to their strengths (technical know how), and avoid the scary social human interaction.”
spot on scott.
…that would be me in a nutshell, i’m in college, cs major, and just got my first kiss :\
posted by lauren on 8-1-2007 at 1:30 pm
I went to MIT, and one of my best friends there used to say “I don’t believe in premarital sex. I’ve been looking for it for years, and I’ve never found any.”
One of his best friends was a math major from Wellesley, who taught me that bedtime was 8:30.
People who can easily harness their minds to pay attention to the same problem for hours at a time are also easily taught to harness their minds to pay attention to the same person for hours EACH time, many times a weekend.
Maybe the average students aren’t very involved, but some of us managed to compensate for those averages.
posted by BurgherKing on 8-1-2007 at 2:24 pm
No one has mentioned the supervision aspect.
IQ is not static; it can be affected by study habits. The kids that study more are more likely to have high IQ’s. Kids who’s parents take a greater interest in their academic progress are more likely to spend more time studying. These kids also have a higher likelihood of experiencing an enforced curfew.
I have heard of a few parents that let teenagers carry on in the manner discussed with their full knowledge and approval, but most parents discourage this kind of person exploration during the high-school years.
So to sum up. Teenagers are more likely to experience copulation while beyond adult supervision. Teenagers who score higher on the IQ test are more likely to have adult supervision. Therefore…
posted by n2y2 on 8-1-2007 at 2:32 pm
So…we’re blaming the parents?
posted by TaTa on 8-1-2007 at 2:37 pm
It may be a concious choice. Possibly smart people refrain because sex isn’t everything and maybe they feel that it’s something worth waiting for the right person for. I was mystified by the preoccupation with sex in high school. What was the big deal? Sex was easier to find in college, but then I was an art major.
posted by Elaine on 8-1-2007 at 2:52 pm
smart kids have better things to do in high school than sleep around and get pregnant. they have futures.
i know it offends ppl like the study-carrel graffiti artists mentioned above, but women with a brain in their heads are also probably much less likely to spend their energies serving others’ sexual needs, either by being “pretty” or having indiscriminate sex. there is also the fact that many men seem to prefer less challenging women, both physically and intellectually, to more challenging ones, and i would have to imagine that goes double for stupid men.
about that second study, though, measuring sexual activity by IQ score is one thing–that’s at least arguably an empirical measure of intelligence. but measuring by major? from the excerpt quoted i’m apparently to infer that studio art majors are inherently stupider than biochem and math majors? who the f came up with that?
posted by beth on 8-1-2007 at 3:03 pm
IQ’s are silly and useless people.
the explanation is simple, and I will repeat what others before me have said: these people lack social skills! Most of them want sex but they can’t get up the nerve to go get it! Its terribly simple. I would know!
Also, the band nerds were always flamboyantly sexually active.
posted by ac on 8-1-2007 at 4:01 pm
I don’t think all smart people have underdeveloped social skills, or are unattractive. I’m not sure that its that the libido is more or less active in intelligent people.
I think they are just less bored. I am intelligent, and was exceptionally attractive during my late teen years up into my thirties. (heck, I’d be a fox now if I could drop twenty pounds) I thought about sex some. I read Anais Nin and The Story of O. I was curious, but I was also very cautious. But above all — I had LOTS of stuff to do and think about. All of my airhead friends couldn’t (and still can’t) think a thought past landing a man. It is he be and end all of their exixtence. They can’t admire an actor unless he’s sexually attractive, they don’t think about politics, they don’t read anything more literary than Cosmo. And on dates they can’t think of anything to do but … that. (I mean, when you aren’t into film , theater, museums, conversation, what else do you do?)
But when intelligent people do have sex … it’s a near volcanic experience. We know how to do our research. ; )
posted by Allison on 8-1-2007 at 4:28 pm
neither less interested nor less physically attractive and that’s not just my opinion. I think they merely have thier priorities in a different order (i do anyway)
posted by Korin on 8-1-2007 at 4:43 pm
i love this article because i noticed this throughout high school and college. lol
posted by ajadoniz on 8-1-2007 at 5:22 pm
My friend also used to remark that all of the girls he knew were either taken or not very attractive. The truth turned out to be that girls who are in love smile a lot, and that makes them more attractive.
When I was a kid my parents used to tell me I had to find someone smart to fall in love with, because I wouldn’t trust someone if I could outsmart her. It was a long wait between girls who seemed like good choices.
When I found someone I could love and trust… it was too easy to go from Almost Never Been Kissed to Virtually Married in a few weeks. It frustrated me to no end that my parents thought we were too young, but in retrospect it took me a very long time to learn to be a decent husband.
posted by BurgherKing on 8-1-2007 at 5:28 pm
In about three weeks, I’m starting my freshman year of college. I plan on studying chemistry. Not only do I have to take ridiculously hard classes, but I’m not gonna get any, either? This is just getting worse and worse.
posted by Anna on 8-1-2007 at 6:59 pm
ac says:
“Also, the band nerds were always flamboyantly sexually active.”
Right on. I was a smarty-pants band kid, my first “real” boyfriend was also a smarty-pants band kid, and let me just say that we band kids had A LOT of sex. A LOT. Enough that now I’m considering keeping my daughter away from band kids when she gets to be that age.
The band geek stereotype did not apply, at least not where I went to school. It might be that my high school was relatively small and the smart kids were usually also the popular kids, too.
posted by Rachel on 8-1-2007 at 7:37 pm
My official (legitimate in-person test) IQ is 165. My priorities are with studying biology and having fun with the people I love. The two realms aren’t mutually exclusive; it is quite easy to enjoy both. When you get into the upper range of genius, a lot of people are very shy and have been subjected to being outcasts because of their brilliance. If you’re truly that smart, people do get intimidated by you and kids especially are mean as you’re trying to fit in. This results in refraining from a lot of social activities because of a prediction of being rejected. If these people are lucky enough to have grown up with equally bright peers though, they’re not affected in this way because they didn’t experience nearly as much rejection. I lost my virginity at 16, and I’m socially normal because I had many equally bright friends to grow up with.
It’s really all a matter of confidence, and a lot of bright people don’t have confidence because intelligence still isn’t very valued in our society.
posted by Dandelion on 8-1-2007 at 10:28 pm
I know it sounds weird, but some people indeed do not masturbate. You don’t have to believe me, but it’s true.
posted by lll on 8-2-2007 at 1:39 am
I definitely don’t think it has to do with a lack of interest at all, but I do think that some people have different priorities. However, I think that when we’re talking about a couple standard deviations above an average IQ, I think we’re getting more into social skills. On one hand, this could be socially constructed: smart kids are not placed in social situations as much, as their parents recognize their intelligence and want them to develop those skills instead (not on purpose, I’m sure, but I know that as a kid, I was never really encouraged to join clubs and stuff like that, and I do think my social skills have suffered partly because I wasn’t such a joiner at that age). Also, smart kids usually have smart parents. Thus, if those smart parents have the social skills stereotypical of smart people, then they probably passed those down to their kids.
On the other hand, people with lower IQs don’t seem to get much action either, nor are they known for their social skills. Maybe that suggests that those with the best social skills are those with average IQs, so maybe it’s something beyond a social construct. When we look at it this way, then the intelligence is a spurious cause of the lack of action–the real cause being a lack of social skills.
It would be interesting to see how intelligence factors into other social situations, like success in non-academic careers, for example. I bet we’d see similar results.
Also, relating this back to the article about smart kids being depressed, it could be this lack of social skills that encourages or continues depressed feelings.
But doesn’t it seem like, evolutionarily speaking, the smartest among us should be having the most sex? Doesn’t mother nature want the smartest to have more opportunities to procreate? I mean, come on! Sure I don’t have great social skills, and I’m an academic which means that I’m in a basement on a university campus in the middle of nowhere for about 40 hours a week staring at a computer so I never meet any new men, and I do have a depressive personality, but I really should be getting way more than I do . . . . I think most smart people would agree with me.
posted by Cynthia on 8-2-2007 at 1:53 am
I think people who fall within the above 100 and blow 70 IQ range simply devote more action into thinking or comtemplating rather than on the action .
posted by twc on 8-2-2007 at 2:01 am
I’d like to see the raw data and apply my own statistical evaluation.
I was tested 3 different times for IQ in the course of my education and scored between 135 and 150. I learned early on (2nd grade) to look for patterns in tests, so was/am a whiz at multiple-choice and true/false exams. Does this make me intelligent? Dunno. Make me cunning? You bet.
I was a geek in HS (although the term had not yet come into wide usage), lacked social skills – still do, for that matter – and still managed to lose my cherry at 16.
I agree with the threads that brighter people have more sense of purpose, the ability to concentrate on tasks, and are more committed to things of the mind rather than glands, but I guarantee we still get it on and think about it regularly.
Personally, I believe that it is social ostracism that keeps us geeks and nerds from getting laid as much. That and the fact that we know if we get someone pregnant (or, for the ladies) get pregnant, it cuts deeply into our opportunities for higher education and/or employment.
I have one child, a son currently aged 35, and after he was born I had a vasectomy. Never looked back.
BTW: I raised him and it certainly cut into MY opportunities…
posted by Doc on 8-2-2007 at 7:48 am
Being an intelligent high school student means that you are more aware of future possibilities – higher education, moving to a larger city, living overseas, etc.
One of the quickest way to limit such opportunities is to have a child. Suddenly your planned tuition money is going for other expenses, as you now have other family responsibilities, and the chances are higher you will stay in your hometown.
Smart people realize this risk, so they are more likely to delay entering a sexual relationship until their life is more established.
Thoose who have no plans for college do not have such concerns, are more likely to stay in their hometowns, and don’t have the same worries about limiting their future, so they are more likely to proceed with sex at a younger age.
posted by Vern on 8-2-2007 at 8:14 am
Smart people, especially at a young age, tend to be socially more akward than average. I figure that is the simplest explaination.
posted by Forrest on 8-2-2007 at 8:15 am
It makes sense that the average-intelligence people get the most action. There are more of them, they interact beter with people of likemindedness, and their social skill set is more in line with the norm for our society.
Just because you’re smart doesn’t mean that you have poor social skills. It just means that in social situations you don’t have as many people with which you share an attraction to interaction.
Of course being smart doesn’t mean you’re great at social interactions either, but the stereotype is just that: non-correlative. I think smart people get disheartened at the social scene for various reasons and lose interest in honing their social skills, deciding to spend more time on activities that show some positive feedback: learning about stuff. It is much easier to post a comment on a blog then articulate these things in a live forum, especially with the bread-and-curcus masses, eh?
posted by Phil on 8-2-2007 at 9:06 am
I disagree with the people who say it’s because smart people are socially awkward. Being smart and being a geek or nerd doesn’t go hand in hand. My friends and I were not in the geek group and in a lot of ways they were getting more action than we were, or at least, dating more.
Also, I think it’s more important to look into the relationship implications versus just having sex. That fact that people with a higher IQ have a decreased likelihood of romantic contact in any sense is what’s really important. I think most of the smart people my age aren’t or are waiting to having sex because they know it’s too dangerous with the risk of pregancy and STDs.
posted by Sally on 8-2-2007 at 9:06 am
One more thing — 100 is not a high IQ, and 70 is pretty dismal. The people between 70 and 100 are NOT brilliant, they’re normal but a bit below average.
posted by BurgherKing on 8-2-2007 at 10:42 am
Is there a correlation between intelligence and fear of rejection? I don’t remember any of the smart crowd going into direct sales either.
posted by Ed on 8-2-2007 at 1:17 pm
Oddly enough in high school, I ran a study on student sexual activity. By administering a purity test (just google it if you don’t know what one is) to 75% of the student population (about 600 samples in the one school) I got a pretty good feel for what they were up to. Top of the list for sexual activity was AP girls, followed by lower level boys.
posted by Arvid Semminson on 8-2-2007 at 1:20 pm
I know my mom is way below 100IQ and my Dad is at least 130IQ. They got pregnant with me when they were 17 & 19, so that messes up all of the research.
My IQ is also over 130 and I dated tons in high school ( hot or not still thinks I’m a 9.1) the kids all thought I was having sex but I sure wasn’t,I did not want to end up like my parents. I married a McSmarty who was a super nerd that never dated,kissed or masturbated until college. He went to Harvey Mudd and the only saving grace was that Scripps was across the way. ;)
posted by CropTillDawn on 8-2-2007 at 6:08 pm
I was socially awkward in high school and college, but went to a college filled with socially awkward students. It was nice to fit in.
While in high school, I was focused on keeping my grades up, and had many interests, but ‘having sex’ was not a big priority. I looked ahead to the pain that would come from the inevitable separation from the relationship when I went to college, and also made an assessment of my own maturity and ability to maintain a good relationship. It didn’t look like a good prospect.
Many things that are done by the young and impulsive end up haunting them or leaving scars that remain for a lifetime. Perhaps a higher IQ, or its equivalent in actual intelligence or ‘emotional intelligence’ leads to greater circumspection. It seemed clear that I didn’t want to have sex with someone without the committed relationship that should go with it. Even if opportunity had presented itself (extremely unlikely, by the way),
it held the same place in my mind as drinking alcohol: too much for me to handle.
That being said, I had my first kiss when I was 22 years old. Does that make me a loser? Well, we have been married for over 20 years now, so by some measures I am doing well. I also have to say that by that time I was *ready* to be committed to her. The kiss was almost transcendentally wonderful. To have a first kiss that almost makes you faint from its emotional intensity is well worth the wait.
posted by Daniel Kim on 8-3-2007 at 6:15 am
“Maybe that suggests that those with the best social skills are those with average IQs”
It doesn’t seem like much of a leap of faith to assume that. People with low IQs have a hard time identifying with the thought processes of those more intelligent, and those with high IQs have the same problem in reverse.
With a lack of empathy, and presumably different interests (as mentioned repeatedly before) social skills just aren’t plausible. I find it a terrible burden to try to be nice to someone who I don’t find mentally challenging at all. I don’t understand why they only want to talk about clothes/Cosmo/cars/whatever, and they just can’t understand anything else.
In general, I think it’s a compound clusterfuck that really does lead to smart kids not getting laid. I’ve found that going to a geeky college has definitely taken a lot of pressure off. I’m no longer the outcast, just average. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t others who are taking up those “exceptional” slots instead and not getting sex.
posted by DvO on 8-3-2007 at 10:19 pm
OK, I was rated approximately 135.
It serems to me that the others here with “higher” IQs are defensive and protective.
I quit HS in my sophomore year as, school was always intensely boring.
They attempted to teach me what I already knew and, as I had a high level of curiosity and being analytical(had my Dad’s calc & trig books all but memorized in 4th or 5th grade), I needed to find other things to hold and/or excite my interest.
I had my initial complete sexual experience at 12.
None of all of the above has braught about any negative aspects to my life.
I don’t need to play goody goody two shoes about anything and haven’t spoken of my IQ in a couple of years.
I don’t need to pump myself up, at least not THIS way;)
Life lived in the real lane is so much more enjoyable.
posted by SEXPERIENCED IQ on 8-4-2007 at 9:44 am
Array
posted by ZZEKON4 on 8-17-2007 at 5:09 am
i don;t understand why this research is done to iq because iq is proven to be bias and not actually acurate. but all and all i am a minority according to this, i have slept with more then one girl and i am still in high school BUT i don;t think my intelgence has anything to do with it, what gets in the way of it happening more is my time, i do sports at a UNI and then keeping marks in 90s plus i have morals i won;t sleep around
i have a friend who is a player and a womenizer, whos every bit as smart as me (iq don;t know but does no more work then me to get the same marks)… but he sleeps around… i think it has more to do with confidence and effort then intellegence…
posted by Nick on 1-8-2008 at 12:09 am
the smarter folks tend to lack social skills (i know this from a hell’ov an experience!)
i also think that cuz smart ppl hav this ‘altered’ level of socializin, they can do many ‘gifted’ things, like they can be masters at chess, cleverest in debate, the wittiest girl-pullers etc, get the best grades – that def indicates high IQ. but that also requires resources like money, looks, atleast some friends. a genius cud initially hav been a tramp lookin ahead on a strugglin road toward financial security & some family assurrance. thats to say they wer smart enuf to also sacrifice the ‘less’ or ‘common’ things that ‘most other ppl do’ such as premarital sex then lower jobs.
overall, yes its to do with IQ but also resources..
posted by yas on 2-21-2008 at 2:32 pm
in highschool i had sex everyday. my bf and i would sneak into the girls room @ lunch we always took the last stall! p.s. someone want sex tonight?
posted by sexkitten on 2-21-2008 at 3:17 pm
So I know that this comment is coming in really late to the game but I was doing research on the subject and ran across this post. I don’t think that this is a fair assessment. I’m very intelligent (a member of Mensa) and as a teen, I never studied because I never had to. Everything came naturally to me and so with all that free time, I was a very sexually active teenager and college student. I’m not the only case- look at Asia Carrera!
posted by LandyRue on 2-12-2009 at 10:38 am