Abstinence Pledge Survey

[Disney Doll]

Are you trying to tell me that teenagers are having physical relations outside of marriage??? I'm shocked!

Is there any good evidence that any of what schools teach children on the subject makes a difference? Assuming that the study the OP referenced is correct, it looks like abstinence education doesn't help (big surprise there). Does the safe sex education help? I can't remember (it was an awfully long time ago) listening to anything any grownup said on the subject.

Actually, from all the folks who are lamenting about the teen pregnancy stats, it seems like neither helps.

Unless of ocurse, the only pregnant teens are the ones who went to purity balls or have parents who teach abstinence as one aspect of their children's sex education.

 

[Disney Doll]

And when it comes to gift-giving, why is it always about the woman giving the man "the gift"? The emphasis is so strongly and obviously on the female saving herself for a man. Where's my gift??

Don't you know??? Men are God's gift...or so they think.

 

[Disney Doll]

I will comment on some of the thoughts that are appearing throughout this thread. Mind you, this is only my perspective:

1.) Adolescence is too young: I was 13 when I finally got my ring. I did my research and had to give my reasons to my parents. I am 24 and have never regretted the decision.

2.) Regarding it as a "gift" is wrong: I do not see it as a gift necessarily. Our society equates sex as the ultimate physical demonstration of love. I can tell my future husband (most likely my current boyfriend) that I loved him so much that I waited for him and only him. While I would never judge a man who has engaged in premarital sex, I do wish for the same thing from him, as a relationship should be equal.

3.) My parents were involved only in making sure I was educated about sex (like most parents) and because I asked them for the ring. The ring is merely symbolic of the promise. I do not shout it from the rooftops. The only time I mention it is when people ask me about it, or on threads like this. Honestly, I think most people assume it's a promise ring, and that is fine by me. It only comes up in conversation maybe once or twice a year. People wear jewelry or do things that are symbolic of their beliefs all the time. How is a purity ring any difference form wearing a cross or a Star of David, or putting a bumper sticker on your car that loudly (and sometimes vulgarly) proclaims your beliefs?

4.) One thing I've noticed is that when people find out I wear a purity ring, they immediately either a.) assume I'm judging them, b.) try to change my mind, or c.) both. I never have and never will use the phrase "used goods". I respect your decision to do what is right for your body, but it seems that if you decide to wait for marriage, the same respect is not accorded to you. I find it a rather amusing double standard.

ETA: Making the pledge does not mean that you are uneducated as to the alternatives. I think absolutely it is necessary for adolescents to be educated about safe sex. People seem to think that taking the pledge automatically means that you are naive. That is not always the case.

Please tell your parents how proud they should be of you. I am quite sure they are proud of you, but you sound like a wonderful young woman.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

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.

You should be so proud of yourself! What an amazing young woman!

People like you confirm my belief that our teens will either live up to or live down to our expectations of them.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

...

I'm going to skip over all of the peripheral bickering (you have an appropriate ID) and go back to the core assertion that I made and that you have not addressed.

When I read the initial posting, I understood that people taking purity pledges behaved no more "purely" than non-purity pledgers. I mistakenly inferred from that that the comparison was with all non-purity pledging adolescents. As the McGurn article and the reference from the Medical News Today site make clear, the control was not all other adolescents. The control was people with similar religious beliefs and sexual attitudes. That's a very different thing. To say that pledgers are only as chaste as others that are religious and hold conservative sexual attitudes is very different from saying that they are no more chaste than anyone else.

So far, despite a great deal of typing, you have not presented me with any evidence that contradicts this understanding. Do you have any? Why do you believe (you certainly wouldn't be denying reality to suit your preferred view of it) that the study shows that purity pledgers behave similarly to all other teens rather than just to those religious and sexually conservative teens in the control group that the study was normed against?

If the control group was other religious teens, I can only conclude that the pledges themselves have no bearing. I cannot make the leap that religious and social attitudes have no bearing.

 

[bicker]

The control was people with similar religious beliefs and sexual attitudes.

Absolutely. The survey was normalized to show the effect of the abstinence pledge, only. It normalized for other factors. There is a difference, with regard to these issues, relative to different beliefs and values.

To say that pledgers are only as chaste as others that are religious and hold conservative sexual attitudes is very different from saying that they are no more chaste than anyone else.

You're leaving out what is possibly a large segment of the population, those that do not hold conservative sexual attitudes, but yet still make the abstinence pledge.

So far, despite a great deal of typing, you have not presented me with any evidence that contradicts this understanding.

Why would I? It is not relevant to the issue I raised, which was, specifically, the effect, or lack thereof, of the abstinence pledge, itself.

If the control group was other religious teens, I can only conclude that the pledges themselves have no bearing.

Then you agree with me completely.

I cannot make the leap that religious and social attitudes have no bearing.

And you shouldn't. Moreover, I wouldn't take issue if you concluded that there is a positive impact to be derived from fostering in children a firm basis (religious, if you prefer) on which they would view as unacceptable their having sex before they're mature enough.

 

[RickinNYC]

Not having read this entire long, long thread, just wanted to jump in with my own thought. As long as teenagers take the pledge very seriously and with lots of maturity, I think it's pretty awesome. I do think, however, that it engenders a false sense of security in some of their parents.

 

[Mikelly1221]

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.

This post is very well thought out, articulate, and mature-thank you for sharing it!

I have younger children, so we're not to this point yet (WHEW! ), but for our family, I'd alter it a small bit.

1) Virginity is important for both genders, not just girls. To single out girls is unfair. So, DS and the DDs will be encouraged to abstain until marriage.

2) I truly believe that both parents bring something to the discussion. Only Mom knows how it feels to be a woman-only Dad knows how it feels to be a man. While I know this isn't possible in all families, if we go the ring route, the ring will be from both DH and I.

3) It will be a private thing. The world will know that DS/DD got a new ring. If he/she chooses to share the meaning of the ring, that's his/her choice. Publicizing it may cause it to lose it's meaning.

4) At the end of the day, as parents, we can create all the boundaries and pledges we want, but we are not omnipresent. Sex is like any other life lesson-you teach (lecture ) all you can and then pray that the right choices are made. This may sound fatalistic, but I really don't mean for it to be.

 

[ols386]

Not having read this entire long, long thread, just wanted to jump in with my own thought. As long as teenagers take the pledge very seriously and with lots of maturity, I think it's pretty awesome. I do think, however, that it engenders a false sense of security in some of their parents.

I agree. I think parents need to continually communicate with their children about the subject, and make sure they are educated. I think it's fine if teenagers want to take the pledge, but I don't think many teenagers are mature enough to really understand what they are really committing to.

 

[bicker]

Good point, ols386: And that's why comprehensive social education is important for teens.

This just recently affected our Chalice Circle at church. We were kicked out of the classroom we were meeting in, because the demand for teen OWL classes this winter was so large, and our space was needed to support the OWL program, which focuses on fostering within children and teens:

1. Self Worth
2. Sexual Health
3. Responsibility
4. Justice and Inclusivity.
​

This recognizes the comprehensive nature of the issue, i.e., it being more than just a matter of sexuality.

(We were happy to vacate, to make room for the program. I always thought it was strange to have a Chalice Circle in a classroom, anyway. )

 

[Geoff_M]

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.

Sorry Bicker, but that's a gross mis-characterization of what McGurn wrote. Let's look at it again:

What Dr. Healy was getting at is that the pledge itself is not what distinguishes these kids from most other teenagers. The real difference is their more conservative and religious home and social environment. As she notes, when you compare both groups in this study with teens at large, the behavioral differences are striking. Here are just a few:

- 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.

- And very much overlooked, one out of four of these teens do in fact keep the pledge to remain chaste -- amid much cheap ridicule and just about zero support outside their homes or churches.

Let's put this another way. The real headline from this study is this: "Religious Teens Differ Little in Sexual Behavior Whether or Not They Take a Pledge."

McGurn's beef is that many (but not all) of the media reports regarding the study didn't bother to mention that the two groups weren't representative of the general teen population and that they asserted something not in evidence in the study. As McGurn noted:

Typical was the lead for the CBS News story: "Teenagers who take virginity pledges are no less sexually active than other teens, according to a new study."

There's a minor detail missing in that statement and gives a false impression. Some reporters got it right, like CNN's and accurately told readers about what the qualified comparisons were, but a lot of others didn't... Like US News' health reporter. Here's the lead off:

Teens who take virginity pledges are just as likely to have sex as teens who don't make such promises -- and they're less likely to practice safe sex to prevent disease or pregnancy, a new study finds.

Again, that's an over generalization of the study. But the US News story hints that there's more to the details:

This method allowed Rosenbaum to compare those who had taken a virginity pledge with similar teens who hadn't taken a pledge but were likely to delay having sex, she said. She added that she didn't include teens who were unlikely to take a pledge.

"Similar" how? "Unlikely" why??? This is like contrasting the automobile driving rates and habits of two groups of "similar" teens and not telling readers that the two groups are Pennsylvania Amish and Indiana Amish. And then saying that it doesn't matter what state they live in, teens prefer black cars. Things are normalized here too... so the results must be "valid". The only difference is the state of residence.

There also a glaring inconsistency in the results that no one's mentioned. The study's author is clearly alarmed at the purported effects that taking the pledge had on behaviors: "...they are less likely to use birth control and drastically less likely in fact to use condoms -- it's a ten percentage point difference." However, it's overlooked that the study found no significant difference in the outcomes you would expect to find with this "drastically" higher-risk behavior. Why didn't they find any increases in cases of STDs or unplanned pregnancies among the pledge-takers? To me, this calls that part of the findings into question.

Does all of this mean that purity pledges offer some sort of guarantee that my children won't engage in pre-marital sex... of course not. Do I think that such things are meaningless or worthless.... no. To think otherwise would be like saying that because of the divorce rates that a couple giving a pledge to one another before a crowd is meaningless, silly, should be discouraged, etc. Nor do I think that this study is meaningless, it's nice to know that our personal beliefs that my wife and I have instilled in our kids have a bigger impact on them then them personally making a pledge in front of their peers.

 

[bicker]

Sorry Bicker, but that's a gross mis-characterization of what McGurn wrote.

What McGurn wrote is a gross mis-characterization of the effect of the abstinence pledge. That's the point.

 

[Geoff_M]

What McGurn wrote is a gross mis-characterization of the effect of the abstinence pledge. That's the point.

Please quote for me some of his "erroneous assertions" or "gross mis-characterizations"? Is this one of them?:

Most parents appreciate that a pledge of virginity -- a one-time event that might be made at an emotional moment in a teen's life -- is not some talisman that will magically shield their sons and daughters from the strong and normal desires that grow as they discover their sexuality. What these parents hope to do is direct these desires in a way that recognizes sex as a great gift, which in the right circumstances fosters genuine intimacy between a man and a woman and at its freest offers the possibility of new life.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

What McGurn wrote is a gross mis-characterization of the effect of the abstinence pledge. That's the point.

I don't think I understand yet. You agree that the pledge makes no difference (the big headline) and you agree that "There is a difference, with regard to these issues, relative to different beliefs and values." Why do you think that McGurn is mis-characterizing anything? He was essentially summarizing Bernadine Healy's (former head of the National Institutes of Health and the American Red Cross) article in US News.

Dr. Healy's leads with the following point:

Pledges of no sex until marriage don't work, especially if taken by 15- or 16-year-olds, according to a recent study in the journal Pediatrics. Despite broken promises, however, virginity-pledging teens were considerably more conservative in their overall sexual behaviors than teens in general—a fact that many media reports have missed cold.

That's precisely the nuance that I missed when I originally read this thread. It's what McGurn was saying. While the headline is that taking the pledge didn't change teens sexual behavior, it left a mistaken impression that teens taking the pledge had very similar sexual behavior to teens that did not take it. That doesn't logically follow.

The study looked at a population of teens taking the pledge. It also looked at a population of teens not taking the pledge. To control for effects other than the pledge, the study matched the pledgers with a subset of pledgers based on other factors (religion, participation in youth groups, birth country, friends drinking and drug habits, etc). The two matched groups behaved similarly, so the pledge apparently had no effect.

What Dr. Healy and McGurn are saying is that if you look at the pledge group and compare it to the total group of teens (not just the matched group), you do see differences. These include later age for becoming sexually active (21 vs 17) and fewer partners.

McGurn wasn't saying or even implying that the pledge caused these differences. He was saying that the factors used to normalize the pledge and non-pledge groups also correlated with these behavior differences. I think that was an important point because many people (including myself) mistakenly concluded that kids taking the pledge behave no differently than kids that did not take the pledge. That's not true. They do behave differently, but apparently it is factors other than the pledge itself that cause that difference.

It's interesting to compare two mainstream news articles on the subject. In the Washington Post article, they put a sub-headline that is very misleading: "Teenagers Who Make Such Promises Are Just as Likely to Have Sex, and Less Likely to Use Protection, the Data Indicate". Read as is, most people would conclude that teenagers who took an abstinence pledge are just as likely to have sex as teenagers that didn't take an absitence pledge. That's not true and it's not the conclusion of the study. If the headline had included "compared with teens with similar values", it would have been properly understood. Even when I read through the entire WP article, it was hard to see how someone would pick that up.

In the CNN article on the subject, they make it more clear. In the second paragraph, the say "While teens who take virginity pledges do delay sexual activity until an average age of 21 (compared to about age 17 for the average American teen), the reason for the delay is more likely due to pledge takers' religious background and conservative views -- not the pledge itself."

In summary, the study says that the pledge isn't effective. The study does not say that kids taking the pledge are as sexually active as those that do not. The data in the study show quite the opposite. McGurn was pointing that out for people like me that missed the difference in the reports that we read.