Abstinence Pledge Survey

[Robindianne]

what confuses/disturbs many of us is that if the ring is for you and nobody else, and a symbol of the commitment between you and God... why was your father involved? If it had to be a parent, why not your mother as a woman helping to support you in an important decision of womanhood?

it's not the choice to remain a virgin that is considered peculiar but the formal declaration of the decision in conjunction with the father's participation, as if that particular aspect of his daughter's body/soul requires his active oversight.

Exactly.

 

[Robindianne]

An honest, not snarky question: why is virginity "a gift"? I don't understand this (not you, just in general). Does it mean like "giving" your body? Your (not you you but general you) first time (would first kiss do this as well)? I could understand if he had never had sex before and you had or vice versa but I personally feel it makes women and girls (not you, per se) like chattel or property to be "given" or for their hymen to be "given" from the father (who should not be knowing, saying, doing, giving anything about the daughter's sexual body parts imho) who "owns" them to the husband who will now "own them". KWIM. I just don't get the whole gift thing or the whole purity thing. That said, I DO get wanting to wait for your (ones) own self until you meet the right person and marry before having sex but ceremonies and gifts

Ceremonies feel Ozark mountainy, marrying my cousin and my brother cause we only got 2 birthin age wimin in town and i's one uf um.

Good for you!


I applaud your willingness to speak up and tell your experience.

Is it enough to say that I wish I had taken that pledge when I was younger? I wish that I had that gift to give to my husband. That may sound naive and whatever. I was not a horrible person, did not go around sleeping with whomever but when I found my husband I do wish that I had that to offer to him.

BTW, we have been married almost 15 years, this isnt a new relationship.



I think its horrible that someone forces it on their children but if it comes from a teens heart, I dont see why ANYONE would have a problem with it.

 

[phragmipedium]

I don't have a problem with it the whole abstinence issue; as long as it's a personal decision about ownership of one's body, more power to him/her. I don't think it's right when it's "encouraged" or forced by a church or parent to make that promise; it should be a personal choice. I do not enjoy the idea of a father *or* mother controlling/giving a daughter's virginity on to her husband; that's very upsetting to me. It seems to me Eeyore's Butterfly has a perfectly healthy/normal conviction and that it was not forced upon her; setting a goal and sticking to it is to be commended.

I don't really understand the necessity of the ring/necklace/purity object. It's kind of like when I watched the Duggar show with the 18 kids, and saw the oldest son and his fiance hanging out, holding hangs obsessively. Everywhere they went they needed to have a chaperone go with them. Why? If they were so strong in their convictions to do nothing more than hold hands until marriage, why would they need a chaperone? I guess I feel the same way about the ring. If it's a personal, non-public choice and conviction, why do you need anything to display it to anyone, even yourself? (A generic question, not directed at EB). Marriage is a little different - a mutual, public choice and declaration, so it's not quite the same as saying it's just like a wedding ring. Just my feelings on it, I guess. But I make no judgments against anyone who chooses abstinence - we all have to do what we feel is best for ourselves and right for us and there are certainly a lot worse things teenagers could be doing than not having sex.

I do wholeheartedly believe in comprehensive health and sex education, whether one's goal is abstinence or not. I know several in my graduating class who became pregnant after having some sort of promise/purity ritual, but none who had not. I agree with a prior poster that this kind of ritual can help parents and kids put their head in the sand and pretend no one needs to teach or talk about anything, enabling a "we just got carried away unprepared" type of moment. My best friend was one of several in her youth group at church who participated in a ceremony of this type. I pity the poor young man in the youth group who was the lone abstainer (ha ha) from making the purity promise in the church ceremony - talk about peer pressure! But he's doing fine, graduated from college, no kids. My best friend, on the other hand, was pregnant two months out of high school with her boyfriend of three months, dropped out of college, he never went after all, and they struggle. I often think they would not be together if not for the child. Anyway, it would have been no big deal if she hadn't had the purity promise ring. No one would have been upset; she'd graduated high school and it's really not that stigmatized anymore; she had lots of support. But because she'd made this big promise to God in front of her church and family, all of a sudden she was shameful because she couldn't keep that promise. The guilt was so compounded. And I know that because she kept telling herself it wasn't going to happen, she wasn't prepared when it suddenly did. She had sex education and wasn't stupid - it's just that when you keep telling yourself you're not going to have sex, you're not preparing yourself with birth control options. And if you're not strongly convicted or just have a weak moment, you have no protections.

Honestly, I don't care if my children wait for marriage to have sex or not. I didn't, though my DH did. We both agree it's of utmost importance to us that our children are well-educated, prepared, mature, and in a committed and loving relationship. If that happens before marriage, I have no problems with it. I don't see the world as black and white, and I'm primarily concerned with their health and happiness and raising them to make good well-reasoned choices, rather than dictating for them not to have sex until marriage. If they want to make that committment for themselves, I would be perfectly fine with that as well, though I would not be picking out or purchasing the jewelry or participating in any kind of ceremony. I think it would make more sense for the teenager to select/purchase jewelry themselves if they felt it were necessary to display. And I really hope they wouldn't want a ceremony to publically declare their abstinence anymore than I'd want them to have a ceremony declaring they lost their virginity - whose business is that anyway?

 

[mfd25wife]

Science has spoken!!!!! All hail empirical "surveys" and their "unvarnished truth"!

Since this is a foregone conclusion......I suggest we all go down to the nearest "Planned Parenthood Eugenic Carbon Reduction Center", get our "Bratz Mornin' aftah pillz" (now in a handy PEZ dispenser!) & head towards the nearest MTV Reality Show we can find (I'm holding out for "The Hills")

Fashizzle (Gesundheit!)

/s

OTOH, perhaps abstinence does have a place.......and maybe it comes from a place that surveys like this do not fully take into account. That is, as part of a faith-based morality code......not as an option on a Universal Health Coverage bill.......

Is anyone freaked out by the "purity" word?

Why would the word freak anyone out?

I agree. It's the archaic notion that a girl's worth depends on the intactness of her hymen.

I know the boys are included in the purity rings things, but those purity "balls" are all about the girls.

EDA: I was horrified when my 6th grade daughter came home from school with a pledge to stay a virgin until she was married. Her body belongs to her, not the school.

I don't understand the purity balls, but I think it is great that teens at least want to try to abstain. I hope my DD chooses to.

Some people (myself included) do not believe that abstinence is bad. I have quite a few reasons for my pledge, only some are religiously motivated and I am not going to go into all of them here. If I stood here and said that everybody who has sex before marriage is a godless heathen and this concept was created by pimps and prostitutes, then I would be flamed all the way to kingdom come. If you don't want to wait for marriage, fine that is your decision. But do not dictate to me what I do.

I love my boyfriend very much, but our relationship doesn't rely on the physical to work. We are waiting for marriage because that is what works for us. Blanket statements like everybody must wait for marriage or abstinence is bad oversimplify things and are rarely accurate. Apparently abstinence is bad for you. Don't try to make your issues everybody else's issues.

I didn't copy all of your posts, but I like all of them. I'm impressed you know what you want. I'm also impressed you felt you could talk to your parents about anything and your dad supported YOUR decision.

Still, I think its creepy to promise your virginity to your father until he "gives you away" to another man (your husband) to take it from you. A girl's body belongs to her --not her father or her husband.

I don't think it is creepy. I do think it is a personal decision, though. Too many times, I think people get negative conatations of situations that are completely innocent. If something ever happened to me, I would be happy DD felt she could go to her dad or step dad and talk about her decision and be supported. Also, I wonder if it just makes the promise of commitment more likely to last if it can be vocalized to someone. People are encouraged to find others to help them in their pursuit of weightloss, sobriety, etc. I look at it the same way to some degree.

I think it's naive to think a twelve or thirteen year old male or female can make a decision about sex without knowing the full extent of the hormonal and emotional urges that will take over their body in the forthcoming years.

I also think it's naive to expect teenagers to manage to control these urges when the vast majority of adults still struggle with them

I would rather teenagers be given a comprehensive sex education including the physical and emotional aspects of safe sex than be pressured in any way into a commitment they do not know that they can possibly keep.

Further, if they choose to make that commitment for themselves, I don't see why anyone else needs to be involved in that decision. We all make the decision to have sex alone, and we can make the decision to wait alone too.

While it may be true that it is naive, I have taught my DD that she needs to know how far she will go and how she will handle situations BEFORE she gets into them. The situation will come about and she needs to know beforehand, not wait until the hormones are raging and there is no mental preparation. I also have told her that in a lot (notice, I didn't say all) cases, I have seen many women be hurt because the intimacy means more for them than for the men. It's not that I am accusing them of lying, but in so many cases the woman gets more attached. She knows about STD's. She knows about the possibiliy of unplanned pregnancy and how it does affect a woman's life. I've talked to her about just almost all aspects.

Maybe it will make more sense if I explain my reasoning better.

I grew up in a non religious household. My father reads the Bible but does not attend church. My mother doesn't know what to believe but has a problem with most Christian denominations and the hate they preach. They allowed me to choose my own religion. I started attending a Southern Baptist Church when I was 8 because a friend went there. It was through my youth group there and my two best friends who attend other churches that I heard about True Love Waits.

I made the decision in middle school to do it. It is my belief that God's intent was for people to wait for marriage. God asks for us to remain pure. To me this is staying away from any temptation that leads you astray from His plan. Be it sex or other sin. That is how I interpret it and I do not expect others to hold my same beliefs.

I later became Catholic after much research into the other denominations and visiting various churches. My belief still holds that this is what God has intended for my life. But it is not just a a religious pledge. Other factors went into my decision:

-I do not have to worry about STD's. When I say no sex, I mean no sex. I don't split hairs about types of sex. I have held hands with friends as they waited for the results of STD tests, this is something that I do not have to worry about. Most STD's are incurable and will lead to serious repercussions later in life. Yes, you can use a condom or other barrier protection, but they can and do fail. Albeit, rarely, but it is always a possibility.

-I have known several people who have stated they wish they waited. It seems that sex often gets used to control people or try salvage a broken relationship. It seems from my own observations that sex can complicate a relationship when it is engaged in too early. This is why I will wait.

-I grew up in a family in which physical displays of affection were not prevalent. I very rarely see my parents kiss, hug, or even hold hands. Due to work schedules and the fact my mother has sleep apnea, they don't even sleep in the same room. I grew up around two happily married people who did were not reliant on physical affection to show their love for each other, so it has simply never been a priority for me.

-I do not have to worry about an unintended pregnancy. Birth control can fail. There are also some potentially nasty side effects with birth control such as increased risk of blood clots. Most people don't get them, but the potential has always frightened me. I will not have to worry about becoming pregnant at an inopportune time and the difficult decisions inolved.


-There are many medical conditions that can affect sexual desire. What happens if one or both partners is unable to have sex for a period of time? No, most relationships are not based solely on sex, but when it is the overwhelming basis of your relationship, it can and does cause problems. I would prefer to know that a man loved me for more than just my body.

-Several you claim that wearing a ring "advertises" it and that nobody else does. How about shirts with sexual innuendo? Wearing promiscuous style clothing that puts one's body on display or dressing like a pimp as some are wont to do? What about the sacred wedding ring? In most cases the wedding is not consecrated until the couple has sex. That wedding ring advertises that you are most likely having sex with that person, and that you are in a monogamous relationship if you are inaccordance with societal norms. As I stated, most people automatically assume it is a promise ring if they notice it at all. It does not say "True Love Waits" on it or look like a typical purity ring. The ring is for me and me alone, and the only way you will know what it is is if I tell you. I don't go up to random strangers and announce it. If you met me in real life, you would most likely not know what it was.

For all I have said you can have a counterargument for, and that is fine. But this is what worked for me and the reason I chose this path.

Actually, that is not what I am saying at all. I do not think I should have to ignore my personal life experience as a sop so we can agree to disagree. That would be dishonest.

Yes, the Federal Govt and me........we really don't agree on much. I am surprised that my comments are construed as advocating tyranny of any kind. I would simply like to vote on an issue of great moral significance. An opportunity which has been denied since the 1970's.

Yes, John McCain.....extreme right winger (lol).......if he is (and I really doubt he is-I would have received the Bat Signal from his campaign long ago), he has a very compelling cover story.....you know, (tm Caroline Kennedy all rights reserved) his long career of public service.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

OMG I'd be LIVID! If this was a public school (and maybe even if private unless I signed something that said in the fine print that they could do any stupid thing to my child that they wanted to), I'd be making sure heads rolled over this.

Well they are doing this in Texas. When my dd took health in PUBLIC high school they had her sign something and got points for a GRADE!

I told her sign it and be done. It means nothing and no one is taking it seriously anyway.

 

[DISUNC]

Being a former teenage boy (not That LONG AGO) I would've found "Purity Rings" a reason to seek.......'unringing"!

 

[Eeyores Butterfly]

Then that is your issue. You would not have been somebody I would have chosen to spend my time with. I refuse to date or hang out with a guy who is not respectful of my beliefs.

 

[DISUNC]

Then that is your issue. You would not have been somebody I would have chosen to spend my time with. I refuse to date or hang out with a guy who is not respectful of my beliefs.

My point is Hormonal Teenagers are Hormonal Teenagers. Nothing different today than 25 years ago, or 50 years ago or 100 years ago. Many "sweet Talking" boys have persuaded "good" Girls into doing other than their beliefs (or more importantly ..their parents beliefs). So this "purity pledge" thing is all moot!
Might as well have teens pledge to Make a million dollars by the time they are 21. They will believe they will....but will they?????

 

[Eeyores Butterfly]

It wasn't moot for me or either of my best friends. Of course, none of us were pressured into it. We made the choice of our own free will. Perhaps that was the difference. We also did not date as much as some of the girls in our class (our choice) and were more likely to date boys who professed to similar beliefs. We were also less likely to find ourselves alone in a private place with said boys. Typically dates were public, like a movie theater or restaurant. In fact, one girl quickly dumped a 'sweet talking boy' who had similar thoughts to you. In the situations most people are describing, it seems that it is moot because kids are being pressured into it, and are taking the vow against their will, sometime with no intention of keeping it.

 

[DISUNC]

It wasn't moot for me or either of my best friends. Of course, none of us were pressured into it. We made the choice of our own free will. Perhaps that was the difference. We also did not date as much as some of the girls in our class (our choice) and were more likely to date boys who professed to similar beliefs. We were also less likely to find ourselves alone in a private place with said boys. Typically dates were public, like a movie theater or restaurant. In fact, one girl quickly dumped a 'sweet talking boy' who had similar thoughts to you. In the situations most people are describing, it seems that it is moot because kids are being pressured into it, and are taking the vow against their will, sometime with no intention of keeping it.

Thats admirabel & wonderful....and more so GOOD FOR YOU! Do what is best & right for you...ALWAYS!

However as the OP stated, The study said those girls who pledged had a slightly higher rate of activity then those who didnt.
So what purposes to these public pledges serve?

I guess I still think that this is a private matter for each teenager & their parents. It is the Public stating of purity that I dont understand. I would think the openess of that would actually lead to the opposite. Sort of like the "Streisand Effect" (she tried to legally squelch public pictures of her house being used on websites, and by suing the company who published the pics, more people saw her house & its location then would have known otherwise)

 

[Eeyores Butterfly]

That makes more sense. I agree it doesn't need to be done publicly. In fact, I've never even heard of a public ceremony until coming to this board. Around here, it was always a private thing. The topic might have come up once or twice in youth group or Sunday school, but there was no ceremony to it. At least not when I was that age. Maybe things have changed.

 

[Saxsoon]

As I posted on the Liberal thread, I will be too sad and sulking the next 4-8 years to even think of sex.

In all honesty, sex isn't that big a deal to me, I have waited 18 years, what's a few more? I honestly don't see the need for the rush. I think it is like the little kids trying to grow up to fast and be like mommy and daddy. I really don't want to grow up and take those responsibilities yet. There are too many risks involved even if you are protected. I want to try and get my Bachelors and Masters before I even marry, so that covers the next 6-7 years anyway. Alas, I am a freak in this society.

 

[Soarin08]

As I posted on the Liberal thread, I will be too sad and sulking the next 4-8 years to even think of sex.

In all honesty, sex isn't that big a deal to me, I have waited 18 years, what's a few more? I honestly don't see the need for the rush. I think it is like the little kids trying to grow up to fast and be like mommy and daddy. I really don't want to grow up and take those responsibilities yet. There are too many risks involved even if you are protected. I want to try and get my Bachelors and Masters before I even marry, so that covers the next 6-7 years anyway. Alas, I am a freak in this society.

You sound exactly like me! I don't have a problem with waiting. I don't believe I am ready for the risks involved that come with premarital sex- a child being the biggest. I know I'm a freak in this society as well, but I find my morals much more important than listening to what society thinks is acceptable. I don't have a boyfriend, and I am not the kind of girl who will sleep with anyone, so sex is not even an issue in my life. My education and work and friends and family and faith are much more important to me.

 

[bicker]

Actually, that is not what I am saying at all. I do not think I should have to ignore my personal life experience as a sop so we can agree to disagree. That would be dishonest.

No one suggested that you should ignore your own experience; rather, the point is that one's own personal experience is their own, not a basis on which everyone else should be expected to derive guidance.

I would simply like to vote on an issue of great moral significance.

I grew up in a town that was about 85% Jewish. Would it be right to have a vote there that established a town religion? Of course not.

Yes, John McCain.....extreme right winger (lol).......if he is

Your reading is faulty. Try reading the message again.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I think I misunderstood the results of the study when I read this thread. I thought it meant that purity ring wearers had sexual behaviors very similar to the youth population at large. It appears that I was mistaken.

According to this article, purity ring wearing teens differ from other teens in these ways:

- These teens generally have less risky sex, i.e., fewer sexual partners.
- These teens are less likely to have a teenage pregnancy, or to have friends who use drugs.
- These teens have less premarital ******l sex.
- When these teens lose their virginity they tend to do so at age 21 -- compared to 17 for the typical American teen.
-

What the study established is that it is not the pledge or ring that makes them more sexually conservative than the overall teen population. The behavior of pledge ring wearers doesn't differ from other "those who are just as religious and conservative as the pledge-takers."

So if you want your child to be more sexually conservative than the norm, it appears that raising them to be more religious and conservative than the norm will help. On the other hand, if you are already raising them that way, this study appears to show that getting them to take the extra step of pledging chastity doesn't help. That's a lot different conclusion that my initial understanding.

 

[bicker]

You're mistaking an editorial (the article you referenced was an opinion piece by William McGurn, the chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush until last February) for a news report, such as the one broadcast on the Today program, and reported in the news sections of news services, such as the Washington Post, for example.

Here are highlights of the news report:

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."

... 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, ******l intercourse, the age at which they first had sex, or their number of sexual partners.

So the assertion that teens who pledge abstinence had fewer sexual partners, less unwanted pregnancy, less premarital sex, and lose their virginity later, assertions which you copied from McGurn's editorial, are all incorrect. Basically nothing that McGurn asserted in his editorial is supported by the data reported from the study. I suspect McGurn is simply expressing what he wants to be true, and in doing so grossly and irresponsibly leading good parents, such as yourself, astray.

To be fair to Mr. McGurn, he wrote his editorial long before the results of the study were made available. The information he based his opinion on was proven inaccurate by the first normalized study on the subject. So you cannot really blame him for expressing his wishful thinking.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

You're joking, right? You are quoting the Today show as a serious news source? Please, tell me you are joking.

The McGurn piece is an editorial. It still makes factual assertions. It appears in today's Wall Street Journal, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that it was written before the study came out. It was made in response to the study. It clearly takes issue with what you naively view as hard "news."

I cannot find the Pediatrics article online, so I cannot quote from the article itself. However, in this article from Medical News Today, you can read the following about the report methodology:

89 youngsters who reported taking a virginity pledge in the survey one year later, in 1996, were then matched with 645 non-pledgers on over 100 different factors including religious belief and attitude toward sex and birth control. Rosenbaum then compared the results taken five years later, which included what the two groups reported about their sexual behaviour, age at first sex, and their partners, plus the results of medical exams for sexually transmitted diseases

Assuming that you understand how scientific studies of populations are done, you can clearly see that the pledge takers were matched with non-pledgers based on religious beliefs and attitudes toward sex and birth control. This clearly supports the notion put forth in McGurn's piece that the study compares pledgers with similar non-pledgers, not the overall teen population. Once again, it shows that the pledge is not a differentiating factor, but it doesn't compare pledgers to teens as a whole.

You keep using the phrase "first normalized study". What do you think they normalized the study against? I just showed a reference showing that the study group was normalized against a control group with similar religious and sexual views. Why are you assuming that they study group was compares to teens overall? Because you saw it on the Today Show?

 

[Disney Doll]

Why? I learned about the True Love Waits program when I was in middle school. My two best friends were part of it. I had to beg and plead with my father for the purity ring, which I found rather amusing. Of the three of us, none of us have broken our pledge (at least that I know of). One girl's older sister melted down her ring to make her husband's wedding ring.

Perhaps the difference for us is that none of our families pressured us into it and the decision was made base purely on our beliefs. None of us are naive as to the various options out there (birth control, condoms, female condoms, etc.).

For me, there was no public ceremony. I simply chose the ring with my father. It is not an official ring, just a gold band with an amethyst heart. I doubt many people notice it or even know what it is. My father didn't make a big deal over it. In fact, the reason he didn't want to do it initially is that he said he didn't want me to make a commitment I would later regret. I have had no regrets. I am currently in a relationship with a wonderful man and we have been dating for a year. He has similar views.

The ring is for me and nobody else. It is simply a symbol of the commitment I have made to myself and to God. It is not meant to encourage others to do the same or be judgmental against others. It is simply something that is special to me. I realize the choice is a very personal one, and I frankly don't give a hoot what you choose to do or not do. You will not find my father on one of those shows talking about it. Perhaps that is the difference. Those shows only show the very fringe of the group, the ones who are the most likely to make it a huge deal. You don't hear about the ones for whom it is what it was intended to be: a quiet pledge between the teen and God.

I do not find it surprising that those who took the pledge as a group and were pressured into it are more likely to break the pledge. It also does not surprise me that these kids do not know about safe sex as they are much more likely to live in families that will not talk about such things and go to private schools where the topic is forbidden. But if the desire comes from the teen themselves and they have done their homework and have a good solid rational for their belief, then it can be a good thing. No reason to be creeped out.

Thank you for the different perspective.

I am always amazed at how little credit we give our young people. I can remember being a teenager (although the memory is fading a bit!) and I really wasn't look to have sex with every boy I knew. And truthfully, the boys I hung out with were quite respectful in that area too. Teenagers aren't animals, for God's sakes.

But I think I was lucky because my family made me feel loved and secure, so I didn't feel the need to find that elsewhere and delude myself into thinking that having sex with a boy meant he loved me. My parents also raised me with a fairly large amount of self-esteem, so the few boys I encountered who felt I "owed" them something because they took me on a date, took a quick hike.

The "Purity Balls" are, once again, the extremist fringe group, which is why they get all the attention. People like Eeyore's Butterfly, who just quietly did something similar which could act as a tangible reminder in a moment when temptation might take over, are probably more the rule than the exception.

Liken a purity ring to a wedding ring. A wedding ring symbolizes a commitment to the ideal of marriage. Well, the divorce rate being what it is, we know that the ideal of marriage doesn't always work out. Does that mean no one should ever try to get married and wear a ring? Of course not.

Same thing for purity. The ideal of purity may not work out, but it's not a bad thing to strive for if it falls within your belief system. A little tangible reminder is just that, a tangible reminder of a bigger ideal that one hopes to achieve.

 

[bicker]

You're joking, right? You are quoting the Today show as a serious news source? Please, tell me you are joking.

I'm quoting a news report. It was reported through several news sources. The first report was the Today program. The link I just provided you was the Washington Post.

Why, in your reply, did you neglect to acknowledge that I quoted the Washington Post, and insist that I was only relaying what the Today program reported?

Just because you don't like the reality, don't try to denial the reality.

The McGurn piece is an editorial. It still makes factual assertions.

It makes erroneous assertions.

It appears in today's Wall Street Journal, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that it was written before the study came out.

You're right; I read the date wrong.

It was made in response to the study.

Probably because the facts conflicted with McGurn's desires.

It clearly takes issue with what you naively view as hard "news."

You and McGurn are taking issue with science, not news. Again, just because you don't like the reality, don't try to denial the reality.

However, in this article from Medical News Today, you can read the following about the report methodology:

The Washington Post article I linked to explained how the biased studies failed to properly normalize their samples. This study, reported on (again) in the Washington Post and other news services, was the first normalized study.

I'm glad you finally admitted that the "article" you posted was an editorial. Perhaps you could read the actual news articles and come to understand the reality of the situation, and stop supporting the deliberate misleading of American parents.

 

[Disney Doll]

Well, if you go back to the points made about being "creeped out", you'll see that those comments were all directed at public declarations. If they were private commmitments made to one's self and not publicized, then there would be nothing to be "creeped out" about.

Things "creep people out" because they are not things that the people who are creeped out believe in, know about or understand, or want to take the time to understand.

I am a nurse. Part of my job is preparing a dead body for the family to see and then to go on to the morgue. I have had numerous people tell me how "creepy" I am because I touch dead bodies.

What these people don't know is the sense of privelege a nurse has to be with a patient at that moment. They don't understand the sense of peace in a room of a patient who has died, after the family has left, after the inital shock has worn off. They don't understand what a privelege it is to be able to perform that one last act for someone who I have cared for in life...now I care for them one last time in death.

And because they don't other folks don't understand that aspect of my job and all it entails from both a physical, and yes, a spiritual standpoint, it's "creepy".

"Creepy" is matter of perspective, just like everything else.