Here are the results of a new study that show that students who take abstinence pledges still have the same rate of premarital sex as students who don't but also use condoms less. From the Washington Post http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28415602 Study: Teenage 'virginity pledges' are ineffective Youths who promise abstinence are also less likely to use protection Teenagers who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are just as likely to have premarital sex as those who do not promise abstinence and are significantly less likely to use condoms and other forms of birth control when they do, according to a study released today. The new analysis of data from a large federal survey found that more than half of youths became sexually active before marriage regardless of whether they had taken a "virginity pledge," but that the percentage who took precautions against pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases was 10 points lower for pledgers than for non-pledgers. "Taking a pledge doesn't seem to make any difference at all in any sexual behavior," said Janet E. Rosenbaum of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, whose report appears in the January issue of the journal Pediatrics. "But it does seem to make a difference in condom use and other forms of birth control that is quite striking." The study is the latest in a series that have raised questions about programs that focus on encouraging abstinence until marriage, including those that specifically ask students to publicly declare their intention to remain virgins. The new analysis, however, goes beyond earlier analyses by focusing on teens who had similar values about sex and other issues before they took a virginity pledge. "Previous studies would compare a mixture of apples and oranges," Rosenbaum said. "I tried to pull out the apples and compare only the apples to other apples." The findings are reigniting the debate about the effectiveness of abstinence-focused sexual education just as Congress and the new Obama administration are about to reconsider the more than $176 million in annual funding for such programs. "This study again raises the issue of why the federal government is continuing to invest in abstinence-only programs," said Sarah Brown of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. "What have we gained if we only encourage young people to delay sex until they are older, but then when they do become sexually active — and most do well before marriage — they don't protect themselves or their partners?" 'Get real about sex education' James Wagoner of the advocacy group Advocates for Youth agreed: "The Democratic Congress needs to get its head out of the sand and get real about sex education in America." Proponents of such programs, however, dismissed the study as flawed and argued that programs that focus on abstinence go much further than simply asking youths to make a one-time promise to remain virgins. "It is remarkable that an author who employs rigorous research methodology would then compromise those standards by making wild, ideologically tainted and inaccurate analysis regarding the content of abstinence education programs," said Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association. Rosenbaum analyzed data collected by the federal government's National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which gathered detailed information from a representative sample of about 11,000 students in grades seven through 12 in 1995, 1996 and 2001. Although researchers have analyzed data from that survey before to examine abstinence education programs, the new study is the first to use a more stringent method to account for other factors that could influence the teens' behavior, such as their attitudes about sex before they took the pledge. 100 variables 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. "This study came about because somebody who decides to take a virginity pledge tends to be different from the average American teenager. The pledgers tend to be more religious. They tend to be more conservative. They tend to be less positive about sex. There are some striking differences," Rosenbaum said. "So comparing pledgers to all non-pledgers doesn't make a lot of sense." By 2001, Rosenbaum found, 82 percent of those who had taken a pledge had retracted their promises, and there was no significant difference in the proportion of students in both groups who had engaged in any type of sexual activity, including giving or receiving oral sex, vaginal intercourse, the age at which they first had sex, or their number of sexual partners. More than half of both groups had engaged in various types of sexual activity, had an average of about three sexual partners and had had sex for the first time by age 21 even if they were unmarried. "It seems that pledgers aren't really internalizing the pledge," Rosenbaum said. "Participating in a program doesn't appear to be motivating them to change their behavior. It seems like abstinence has to come from an individual conviction rather than participating in a program." 'Negative views about condoms' While there was no difference in the rate of sexually transmitted diseases in the two groups, the percentage of students who reported condom use was about 10 points lower for those who had taken the pledge, and they were about 6 percentage points less likely to use any form of contraception. For example, about 24 percent of those who had taken a pledge said they always used a condom, compared with about 34 percent of those who had not. Rosenbaum attributed the difference to what youths learn about condoms in abstinence-focused programs. "There's been a lot of work that has found that teenagers who take part in abstinence-only education have more negative views about condoms," she said. "They tend not to give accurate information about condoms and birth control." But Huber disputed that charge. "Abstinence education programs provide accurate information on the level of protection offered through the typical use of condoms and contraception," she said. "Students understand that while condoms may reduce the risk of infection and/or pregnancy, they do not remove the risk."
I'm pretty sure this article was featured in this month's issue of 'Duh!' magazine. How does this **** even get printed, are people really this dumb?
Well, abstinence was basically the federal stance on sex education in recent years. I agree with Duh! sentiment, but apparently a lot of people think that avoiding real conversations about sex will prevent sex from happening.
When will common sense abound? An increase in sex education and birth control awareness will make teenage pregnancies go down and will make the number of abortions go down. Many European countries have seen decreases in the abortion % as a result of making info/resources more widely available; sticking your head in the sand thinking that abstinence-only education could work is ludicrous. I never got sex ed in high school, only abstinence. I signed one of those pledges...lots of good that did. Make information widely known. I can't believe how naive I was about sex at 20 years old because no one bothered to tell me anything.
Some people still believe this Mary chick when she got preggers and was all "GOD DID IT!" and it's been printed billions of times. If they'll believe that, why not keep trying?
I had sex ed in highschool health class. I don't know if that is purely the school system or what. Lost my virginity same year, and was having sex without a condom. I think stupidity plays a bigger part in it, than ignorance. Or maybe if teenagers had better access to protection rather than just knowledge. Then again, I the first time I had sex without a condom, I had one in my pocket and didn't bother using it, even know I barely knew the girl. I am an idiot, that is clear.
this is going too far. you would actually WANT your teenage daughter(s) to have sex? abstinence is great. I would be perfectly happy if my daughters waited until college, etc. But yeah - public abstinence only programs are pretty naive.
why are these questions always posed using someone's daughter as an example? if you would have a problem with your daughter having sex, you should have the same problem with your son having sex. not necessarily directed towards you if you were just using your child situation as an example and you don't have any sons, but the double standard women are held to in this society with regards to sex is maddening.
Do you have a daughter? If so, would you want her sleeping around with whatever guy she found attractive starting around the age of 15? In case you forgot, women had babies. Men don't. If your 15 year old daughter comes home pregnant and wants to keep it, it is YOUR problem now. If your 15 year old son knocks up some broad, it is not your problem directly. If men could have babies, sex would be viewed quite differently.
Doesn't have anything to do with the original argument, which pretty much flat out states people with virginity pledges or following abstinence programs are equally likely to have sex and more likely to not use condoms...thus logically, more likely to be pregnant.
So, the double-standard is justified because sexually-active daughters inconvenience their fathers more than sexually-active sons do? I have daughters, but if I have a son, I'll probably be harder on him, with much the same logic. I don't like the idea of my daughters having sex early for the sake of their own happiness, but I know I could help raise my grandchildren if they were to get pregnant young. If I had a son putting girls in crisis pregnancy situations, siring grandchildren of mine that may not be brought to term or properly cared for or allowed to part of my family, I think that'd be worse. In any case, the research is interesting. I don't think it is as obvious as people seem to think it should be.
that's a very compassionate and responsible way of looking at things. when i have children, whether they be male or female, i will stress to them that i don't want them to have sex until they are at a responsible age but if they do, they should be safe and responsible when doing so. i'm not going to tell my son it's cool if he goes and gets some, but tell my daughter she needs to shut her legs. that's call hypocrisy.
Yes. I would. Sex is a normal, healthy function that should be practiced regularly from the age that I deem appropriate for my child. Abstinence is ignorance. Ignorance begets irresponsibility. Sexual education is knowledge. Knowledge begets responsibility. I want my children to be responsible, not ignorant. If they choose to be abstinent, that's their call. I am not going to allow the state, nor myself, to force it upon them or tell them anything otherwise about the true place and meaning of sex in life.
finalsbound and I have an interesting perspective on this topic. We both have old, ultra-conservative, out of touch with society parents in their late 50s - early 60s who mostly believed sex is an evil act and should not be discussed. Because keeping our virginity until our wedding night was something supposedly "sacred and important" we both had mixed feelings when we started dating about just how far we should go. She had "made a promise" and I had it drilled into my head that sex was evil unless there was a wedding ring involved. Then I begin to look around me. The pillar sex is put upon in the Christian community is ridiculous and absurd, and I honestly believe it is a major contributing factor to the high divorce rate in Christian marriages. And don't even get me started on the Catholic views. My example was clearly set before me. My best friend at the age of 19 married an 18 year old girl 10 months after meeting her because they were "supposed to wait" to have sex. Well they rushed into a marriage and then realized they couldn't stand each other. Now she's just turning 21 and they have 2 kids and a doomed marriage. Hope the sex on the wedding night was worth it guys! finals and I decided that wouldn't us. Sex was not something that was going to be a contributing factor to us rushing into marriage. We understood that even though we had a lot of deep feelings, that marriage is a life long commitment that requires a lot of sacrifice and soul-searching on a daily basis. We were upfront about it, and lets face it... I was a 22 year virgin, it didn't take much convincing for her to get me on board with the idea. We felt if 2 people genuinely love each other, why shouldn't they express that love? We started having sex, and honestly it wasn't much of an issue after that. There was no awkward tension anymore. Especially when her parents basically said it'll be 3 ****ing years until we can get married. You expect us to sit around with our legs closed for 3 years? Get real. We don't go crazy with it, it is maybe a once a month thing. We always use forms of contraceptive whether it be birth control or condoms. Pregnancy is not something we can afford right now, and that paranoia is the only thing that keeps us cautious. Of course, I still have more conservative views on "dating." To me, sex is still a special event that should not be exploited, there are a lot of emotional repercussions of sex that a lot of high school aged kids aren't ready to deal with. I don't believe in "casual sex" and my children will be fully informed about sex when they reach the preteen years before puberty hits. My parents made a mistake with me by not informing me about it, I had to learn mostly from kids I hung out with, and the porno mags I found. That was not the education I needed. Sex education is a must. The kids have to know from an early age about it, and they need to be informed. They don't have to make a decision at that age, but they just need to know the facts, or else it will cause a lot of problems for them. Parents who avoid the responsibility of teaching their kids about sex are ducking their duty.
^^^ iow, it was easy to say you were going to wait until marriage when you weren't getting any. seriously though, great post.
