I've long thought it a bad idea for parents to be too rigid--it's almost always the most tightly reined-in kids who rebel.
However, the write-up of the Boston study is too vague for me. I wish they had listed the questions they had asked the teens.
I wonder how many teens told the truth.
And what teens considered rigid parenting to be.
Children also seemed to be less sexually active if their parents did not engage in 'negative and psychologically controlling behaviors.'
The article also talks about risky sex. Risky sex can mean 1) unprotected sex with-one partner, or 2) sex with-multiple partners, or 3) unprotected sex with-multiple partners.
Again, too vague for me.
For every Sarah Palin type family, there are families like the ones I know, where mothers not only allow their daughters to have serious relationships, but encourage their girls to have sex, by allowing the boys to stay overnight, regardless whether the parents are home (among other things). For example, we have one acquaintance whose daughter is a straight-A, Honor Roll student, and as long as she brings in good grades, she can do anything she wants in her personal life.
I think it would be interesting to study the minority of older teens who don't have sex and find out exactly why. Are they shy? Nerdy? Self righteous? Well-disciplined? Sheltered?