Posted on 12/30/2008 11:22:07 AM PST by vivalaoink
Why chastity pledges by U.S. teenagers don't always ring true
Teenagers who vow to remain virgins until they marry are just as likely to have pre-marital sex as other young people, a study has found.
But they are less likely to use birth control when they do sleep with a partner.
The idea of abstaining from sex until marriage has gained wider popularity in the U.S. in the last decade. The Jonas Brothers, a three-piece boy band, are among those vowing to wait until they are married.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I wasn't. 7 days.
Some schools are "encouraging" students to make these pledges. My son refused and was asked for an explanation of his refusal. He told them it was none of their business.
I think many of the kids play along and sign the paper.
LOL
On a slightly related subject (I guess), as a guy, something that makes me...well, not necessarily mad, nor sad, it just bothers me - is when women, especially "professional" women and in some cases, even church women, dress provocatively (top line down to the navel, skirt line up to the waist), and then expect the guys to not look. I'd have to be blind or gay not to notice...
As someone wisely said once, "If you're not for sale, don't advertise."
Seeing that connection made me have to check, I see that Go Ask Alice (another advocate of the sex positive “anything goes, no moral judgements” agenda) is run by Columbia University.
But I did have to check.
Anyone else sick and tired of these expert reports that tell us how we really live that are based on “surveys” of 1,000 human beings?
Excuse me but there are over 300 million people in the Uited States. I have serious problems with some agenda researcher picking 1000 people asking a few questions then reporting what all those 300 million people are doing or not doing........
Anyone thnk the result of a survey on kids and sex could vary based on location?
Wick Wet - BUMP
They took the raw data (which does show that people who take pledges have sex less than those who don’t), and massaged it.
Specifically, they decided that comparing “pledgies” with “non-pledgies” wasn’t rational, since pledgies were more likely to be people who wouldn’t have sex. So they looked for OTHER factors like upbringing, religion, etc, to “weight” the information.
Once they had “comparable groups”, they found that within a “comparable group”, those who took the pledge had sex just as much as those who didn’t, but those who took the pledge were less likely to have a condom or birth control.
Now, the 2nd part is simply common sense. If you have pledged not to have sex, you probably are not on the pill, and probably don’t have condoms around.
On the other hand, the idea that you can find comparable groups in which you can then differentiate between pledgers and non-pledgers is problematic.
For example, suppose you have two girls of similar looks and circumstances, both from conservative christian homes. Both are taught not to have sex before marriage.
Which of the two is more likely to “take the pledge”? The one that feels more drawn to having sex. The pledge is a tool to help you resist temptation. A girl who has no interest in sex may not feel necessary to take the pledge, the girl who is getting pressure to have sex might take the pledge to help fend off the pressure.
Which means that, absent the pledge, it is likely the “pledgers” would have more sex than the non-pledgers.
The point is that “taking the pledge” is not some independent variable. A person’s circumstances is what DRIVES them to take the pledge, or not.
I was as horny as the next kid, and I’ve only had sex with my wife, and only had sex after we were married.
I had the opportunity, but knew it was wrong.
Just as I had the opportunity to steal, to kill, and to do other things that were wrong, but knew they were wrong.
We expect people to obey other laws. We would expect a horny ugly boy to refrain from sex if no girl will sleep with him. SO why can’t we expect other boys to refrain?
I'm not sure the comparison is apt. It's not illegal for teenagers to have sex (unless they violate statutory rape laws)
I did the same thing your kid did when I was in school (refuse to sign such nonsense).
Good for him.
You are so right.
Teenagers are teenagers. I was one....once..
I wish that my little girl was not going to be one soon!!!
I try to put her on the correct path but a teenager has their own mind.
I talk to her about sex and the ramifications of an early age. I just pray that she listens to me.
Does teaching one’s child about guns mean they are going to wind up a psycho killer?
Why doesn’t the same line of thinking apply to sex ed?
Did they teach you in biology about boys and girls having different equipment?
Interestingly last night I watched a show on the History channel that examined lust. They showed brain images of someone (in this case a woman) who was watching erotic images. It turns out that as the “turn on” region of the brain “turns on”, another area of the brain that has to do with restraint loses power. It was the biggest no duh show segment that I’ve seen for quite some time!
Their point would be that the others who give in will end up not using protection.
Just because the equipment (in this case, a firearm) changes, does that somehow change basic safety rules?
Still, putting a thin rubber mitton on the barrel of a current or advanced firearm probably wouldn't work. At the same time people don't come with a "safety" either.
BINGO
Statistically, surveys of 1000 people have a margin of error in the low single digits. If done properly, they are a pretty accurate statistical tool.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.