Skip to comments.Virginity Pledge Doesn’t Stop Teen Sex
Posted on 12/29/2008 3:39:55 PM PST by Responsibility2nd
Dec. 29, 2008 -- Teenagers who take virginity pledges are no less sexually active than other teens, according to a new study.
But the results, published in the journal Pediatrics, suggest that virginity pledgers are less likely to protect themselves against pregnancy or disease when they do have sex.
Researchers say the findings suggest that virginity pledges may not significantly affect teenagers' sexual behavior. Instead, they may decrease the likelihood of teenagers taking precautions, such as using a condom or using birth control, when they do have sex.
Virginity Pledge May Lead to Risky Sex
Researchers say the federal government spends about $200 million annually on abstinence promotion programs, which include virginity pledges. Two previous studies have suggested that virginity pledges can delay sex, but researchers say those studies did not account for pre-existing differences between pledgers and non-pledgers.
In this study, researchers compared the sexual behavior of 289 teenagers who reported taking a virginity pledge in a 1996 national survey to 645 non-pledgers who were matched on more than 100 factors, such as religious beliefs and attitudes toward sex and birth control.
The results showed that five years after taking the virginity pledge:
82% of pledgers denied ever having taken the pledge. Pledgers and matched non-pledgers did not differ in rates of premarital sex, sexually transmitted disease, and oral and anal sex behaviors. Pledgers had 0.1 fewer sexual partners in the past year but did not differ from non-pledgers in the number of lifetime sexual partners and the age of first sex. The biggest difference between the two groups came in the area of condom and birth control use. The study showed that fewer pledgers used birth control or condoms in the past year or any form of birth control the last time they had sex.
Researcher Janet Elise Rosenbaum, PHD, of Harvard University, says the findings suggest that health care providers should provide birth control information to all teenagers, especially virginity pledgers.
What else is new?
More of the same.....
The federal oath of office doesn’t seem to protect the Constitution, either.
When you’re a teen, the spirit (well-intentioned as it might be) is weak and the flesh is willing.
I’m always leery of studies that simply ask people to answer questions. I don’t think they always answer honestly, sometimes they try to give an answer they think the questioner is looking for, or they are embarrassed to be truthful, or they don’t really care and so they just put whatever. I wouldn’t base public policy on these types of *studies*.
I suspect the best way to cut back on teenage sex is for kids to be better supervised by adults. When you have lots of free time and ample opportunity, you are much more likely to engage in things like sex (and drugs for that matter).
But for the degenerates of the left the truth means nothing compared to the Cause.
“Virginity Pledge May Lead to Risky Sex “
However the secular-humanist-anything-goes sex mentality GUARANTEES risky sex.
"Rosenbaum focused on about 3,400 students who had not had sex or taken a virginity pledge in 1995. She compared 289 students who were 17 years old on average in 1996, when they took a virginity pledge, with 645 who did not take a pledge but were otherwise similar. She based that judgment on about 100 variables, including their attitudes and their parents' attitudes about sex and their perception of their friends' attitudes about sex and birth control."
I think they better focus on the girls? Because I just don’t think most teenage boys have the ability to say no to sex with girls unless:
A) They’re very scared.
B) They’re confused about their sexuality.
C) They’re gay.
Little boys are like animals. From what I recall anyway.
Both your replies nail it.
Some of these polls with their “Do you still beat your wife?” questions can easily lead to bogus conclusions.
Well, the solution is obvious. If you want healthy, well-adjusted children, raise them in a brothel.
So in other words people with the same values at first decided to take different actions but ended up taking the same actions. How surprising.
Maybe next they could study why newly elected represenatives and senators break their promises and embrace business as usual in DC.
Words, vows, promises mean nothing without the character to back them up.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
The raw data shows that people who take the pledge are less sexually active than those who do not.
SO they tried to “adjust” for hundreds of characteristics, suggesting that those who take pledges are predisposed to not having sex.
Then, they suggest that, adjusting for those factors, those who take the pledge are more active than they would be if they didn’t take a pledge.
Well, it does make sense that people who take a pledge are likely to be people who feel it necessary to get “extra help” to keep from being active. So in fact if you adjusted for every other factor, and you had two people who had the same religious and sociological background, the person who took the pledge would be the one who was more likely to have sex.
Add to this the fact that the pledge is used by kids who have already HAD sex in order to try to stop, and this particular study is useless.
Of course, I still want to know why it costs the government 200 million dollars to “teach abstinence”.
“Don’t have sex”. Can I just get $1 million, and I’ll tape my lesson and put it on the internet. :-)
SO long as we insist on having years of “sex education”, the liberals will find a way to make it about spending all our money and teaching kids to ignore moral standards.
“Two previous studies have suggested that virginity pledges can delay sex, but researchers say those studies did not account for pre-existing differences between pledgers and non-pledgers.”
Sounds like the “researchers” are cooking the books.
If I read this correctly, it seems this latest study shows that pledge takers do engage in less pre-marital sex, but it is not the pledge that makes the difference, but the fact that those who have strong moral values and/or religious beliefs are more likely to make pledges in the first place.
That said, as a Christian, I am not a big fan of these virginity pledges because:
1) To me they seem to depend upon human effort and pledges instead of upon the power of God and walking in the Spirit.
2) It seems wrong for Christians to make a big deal about, and patting themselves on the back for “pledging” to simply follow the clear commands of the New Testament. Proclaiming Christ as one’s Lord and Savior assumes the rejection of sex outside of marriage. A virginity pledge makes no more sense to me than a pledge not to murder or steal.
“No sex please, we’re daddy’s little girls”
Any one recall this thread?
This may be the first time lefties have ever studied the effectiveness of a government program. Of course there are very few programs they don’t like.
But they wouldn’t think of scrutinizing any of their useless liberal government programs.
They should give all the kids saltpeter (or Lexapro). It’ll prevent all those special elections.
A pledge doesn’t stop anyone from doing anything they are going to do anyway. It’s the character of the person making the pledge, not the volume of his/her voice that will determine whether that person follows the pledge or not.
What it shows, with all the book-cooking we’ve come to expect from the scientific culture-of-death community, that a virginity pledge alone is not a significant factor in chosing a chaste lifestyle, and that “religious beliefs and attitudes toward sex and birth control” do matter.
Since 90 percent of pledgers in the study denied even taking the pledge, none of this should be surprising.
Hard to believe. A government program that doesn't have the intended effect? The stupid parents don't even have to do anything but stand aside and let Uncle Sugar do his thing, and still the little brats don't get the message. Maybe 24-hour-a-day video surveillance by a federal watchdog agency would do the trick. I think I will email the incoming Secty. of Health and Human Services with a proposal. Anybody know who that is?
This nails the real issue.
Bookmark for later reading.
This is the most stupidiest study that I have ever seen. Are they kidding?
America has been saturated by sexuality through our media (Hollyweird and the MSM) all throughout my lifetime.
I grew up in the 80’s when the MSM first started reporting heavily on the AIDs epidemic. I remember that at the time I thought that their would be LESS promotion of sexuality and light porn and all types of porn in the main stream media but instead throughout my entire life it has steadily increased to become more an more open and more and more perverse and more and more shocking.
How anyone could act like simply trying to shelter yourself from all of this and pledge to be pure would stand an honest chance for kids growing up is beyond me.
It is sick how liberal sexually this society has become, imo.
And so, of course, it will never be addressed.
I could teach teenage boys how to avoid sex.
Lesson 1)Don’t talk to girls.
As I wrote in my post #8, at “Condom Nation,” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2155885/posts
the only thing proven is that kids with similar backgrounds will demonstrate similar behavior.
The article in question can be downloaded at
The final “wave 3” data came from what the author calls “adolescents” — who were 22 years old. Data from those who had married was treated as “missing.”
We don’t know anything about the actual sex ed courses that the students took, who paid for the course, or whether they actually took a course or just made a pledge.
I’m not strong on statistics, but isn’t this just too much manipulation of the data?