As many as one in eight teens in the United States may take a virginity pledge at some point, vowing to wait until they're married before having sex. But do such pledges work? Are pledge takers more likely than other teens to delay sexual activity?
A new study suggests that the answer is no. 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.
According to a study published Monday in the journal Pediatrics, pledge takers are as likely to have sex before marriage as other teens who are also religious, but don't take the pledge. However, pledge takers are less likely than other religious or conservative teens to use condoms or birth control when they do start having sex.
In the new study, Janet Rosenbaum, Ph.D., of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, analyzed the large chunk of data used in all the studies that have looked at virginity pledges: the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. In this survey, middle and high school students were asked about their sexual behaviors and opinions starting in 1995-96.
In the analysis, Rosenbaum compared 289 young adults who took virginity pledges in their teens with 645 young people who did not take such a pledge. The researcher was careful to only compare teens who had similar views on religion, birth control and sex in general, regardless of whether or not they took a pledge. Health.com: What should I do if the condom breaks?
Five years after the initial survey the study subjects were aged 20 to 23. Eighty-two percent of pledge takers denied (or forgot) they had ever taken such a vow. Overall pledge takers were no different from non-pledge takers in terms of their premarital sex, anal and oral sexual practices, and their probability of having a sexually transmitted disease.
Both groups lost their virginity at an average age of 21, had about three lifetime partners, and had similar rates of STDs. "And the majority were having premarital sex, over 50 percent," says Rosenbaum. Overall, roughly 75 percent of pledgers and non-pledgers were sexually active, and about one in five was married. Health.com: Who's most at risk for STDs?
Unmarried pledgers, however, were less likely than non-pledgers to use birth control (64 percent of pledge takers and 70 percent of non-pledge takers said they used it most of the time) or condoms (42 percent of pledge takers and 54 percent of non-pledge takers said they used them most of the time).
"There's been some speculation about whether teenagers were substituting oral or anal sex for vaginal sex and I found that wasn't so," says Rosenbaum. "But I did uphold a previous finding that they are less likely to use birth control and drastically less likely in fact to use condoms -- it's a ten percentage point difference."
Rosenbaum is concerned that abstinence-only sex education programs that promote virginity pledges may also promote a negative view of condoms and birth control. The result may be teens and young adults who are less likely than their peers to protect themselves from sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancies. Health.com: Sex and teens: Test your knowledge
Federal funds for abstinence only education programs have increased from $73 million in 2001 to $204 million in 2008. About 25 states apply for such funds each year to educate teens, says Rosenbaum. Sometimes programs are measured by how many teens take virginity pledges, not whether the teens stick to them, avoid sexually transmitted diseases or unplanned pregnancies, says Rosenbaum.
"Studies find that kids in abstinence-only programs have negative, biased views about whether condoms work," she says. Since such programs promote abstinence only they tend to give only the disadvantages of birth control, she says. Teens learn condoms don't protect you completely from human papillomavirus (HPV) and herpes, which is true, but they may not realize that they protect against all the "fluid-based STDs," she says. "People end up thinking you may as well not bother using birth control or condoms."
Virginity pledges, along with a six-hour curriculum, were first introduced in 1993 by an evangelical Christian group, and a 1995 survey suggested that 13 percent of teens had taken such a pledge (current survey data are lacking, says Rosenbaum.)
"Virginity pledgers are very different than most U.S. teens -- they are obviously more conservative, they have more negative views about sexuality and birth control and so, even if they didn't take a pledge, these would be teenagers who would be very likely to abstain anyhow," says Rosenbaum. About 40 percent of the study subjects were born-again Christians, she notes.
The new study does not suggest that virginity pledges are harmful, says Andrew Goldstein, M.D., an obstetrician and gynecologist at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, because they were not associated with an increase in STDs or unplanned pregnancies. However, they do seem to be "useless," says Goldstein, who was not involved in the study.
Promoting the pledges gives a "false sense of security and energy could be better spent in education," he says. "It is time to stop spending money on these useless programs and funnel it into safer-sex counseling." Health.com: Six things your teen needs to know about sex
When it comes to advice for the parents of teens, Rosenbaum notes that just about every organization, from Focus on the Family to Planned Parenthood, offers a similar message.
"Parents should talk to their kids about their sex. It should not be single conversation, it should be a continued conversation at the moments that are teachable moments," she says. "Parents tend to hope that schools will take care of it -- they can't, obviously."
Is anyone really surprised by this? I like the part of the article that says most teens have either forgotten about their pledge or simply ignored it. Without going into too much detail, that's pretty much what happened to me . I think I took one in 7th grade or so at my old catholic church. It didn't do anything when the time came because I didn't even remember I took it! (even if I had, it wouldn't have been effective)
I also had a friend who had bible thumping parents. He honestly didn't know that a latex condom was effective in combating STDs. I wanted to cry when he told me this.
The only person to whom you may promise such a thing is yourself. Many of us find ways --often quite creatively -- to lie to ourselves on a regular basis. So no, I am not surprised.
Of course it depends what you mean by effective. It seems to me you could argue that they are effective because they delay intercourse by four years on average.
Of course they authors of the study ascribe this to the person's religious belief and not the actual pledge and in doing this they hit at the problem with these pledges. There are lots of things that Christians* are supposed to refrain from. It is a bit odd to make a pledge to refrain from just one of them and as Frenchy sings "There are worse things I could do." How about pledges to refrain from violence, greed, indifference to the plight of others, pride?
*I am sure that other religions have similar moral codes, but this discussion is in the context of Christianity.
So, a majority of people in the age-range of 15 - 25 have learned that any promises they make, or pledges they avow, can be cheerfully disregarded later on.
Because the promise was coerced?
Because nature's call trumps mere adolescent words?
Because "That was then; this is now."?
I see absolutely no reason to deny yourself something as good as sex.
It's very, very pleasant, improves the quality of your day-to-day life, keeps the fundamentalist koko-heads mad, improves your health AND stamina. There's absolutely no reason not to do it if you want to(ie. you're horny).
Originally Posted by Kush: I also had a friend who had bible thumping parents. He honestly didn't know that a latex condom was effective in combating STDs. I wanted to cry when he told me this.
I'm Sorry, just thought it was funny. Sad, but funny. If a teen is going to have sex and/or masterbate, it's going to happen, if you like it or not.
Originally Posted by KukriKhan: So, a majority of people in the age-range of 15 - 25 have learned that any promises they make, or pledges they avow, can be cheerfully disregarded later on.
Because the promise was coerced?
Because nature's call trumps mere adolescent words?
Because "That was then; this is now."?
Pretty bad really, when you put it like that.
No one goes through their whole life without breaking their word, I am ashamed to admit I broke mine, but I'm shocked at the apparently casual attitude these teenages seem to have had.
They shouldn't be coerced into making the original statement and thus having to break thier own word to satisfy some other people's morals...
I remember as a kid saying i would never take drugs or anything stupid like that, i was simply underinformed about everything, people had taught me that drugs are crazy evil (rather than just a little bad for the less bad ones) and as a child i accepted that hook line and sinker, i am of the opinion that you are not breaking your word when others mislead you with thier chosen source of information
I made no such pledge, but have still managed to stay true to my Christian beliefs. I have it justified in my mind to wait until marriage, so thats basically what's keeping me going. Of course, being only 17 myself, I could well have to eat my words when I'm 21 or whatever, but I'm saying I've had quite a few offers of sex which I successfully turned down. And they weren't ugly girls either!
Originally Posted by Lorenzo_H: I made no such pledge, but have still managed to stay true to my Christian beliefs. I have it justified in my mind to wait until marriage, so thats basically what's keeping me going. Of course, being only 17 myself, I could well have to eat my words when I'm 21 or whatever, but I'm saying I've had quite a few offers of sex which I successfully turned down. And they weren't ugly girls either!
Sleeping with someone is easy. Proves nothing about how desirable you are. Sleeping with someone that everyone knows is remaining celebate until marriage shows that you are really something. Same logic why I know some homosexual men frequently get chatted up "I turned a gay man straight!"
Originally Posted by Lorenzo_H: I made no such pledge, but have still managed to stay true to my Christian beliefs. I have it justified in my mind to wait until marriage, so thats basically what's keeping me going. Of course, being only 17 myself, I could well have to eat my words when I'm 21 or whatever, but I'm saying I've had quite a few offers of sex which I successfully turned down. And they weren't ugly girls either!
*grumbles something under his breath about no girls ever hitting on him when he´s more than willing*
like the old saying says "God gives nuts to people who have no teeth" indeed
Originally Posted by Ronin: *grumbles something under his breath about no girls ever hitting on him when he´s more than willing*
like the old saying says "God gives nuts to people who have no teeth" indeed
I've realised that the chance of you getting offered sex by any particular person is inversely proportional to how much you want it.
Here's my 2 cents on Romance:
Think of the logic of attraction - I think that the human mind, before it is willing to let the body have sex with someone, needs to feel safe with them. If you want to sleep with someone, and you give it away by being flattering, flirty or suggestive, it automatically lets the other person know what you are up to. If on the other hand you seem to not be interested in them, in their subconcious they feel less sexually threatened by you, and therefore (perhaps over the course of x amount of time) they then become very attracted, and wonder what it would be like if you did like them in that way. If you continue to ignore them in that way, I've heard it described like a cat and string - that is to say, when you dangle yarn or string above a cat, just out of its reach, it will go crazy jumping over backwards to grasp it. Once you let the cat have the string, it merely looks at it for a few moments, then forgets about it and walks away.
In essence, I say that you should withdraw yourself from the mindset of "when and how might I get into her pants" whenever you meet a nice girl, like most guys (including myself sometimes!). That mentality actually reduces the chances of exactly that happening. Instead be friendly and genuine. For instance, with my current GF, I did not actually go out with her until around 6 months after first meeting her. I didn't rush anything, but instead was polite and didn't give away that I was after her. I also hate the fact that many people in our culture use alcohol to speed the whole romance process up. Some people aren't willing to put in the effort to get to know each other sober, so instead they choose to meet at a party, smashed. I think more people should just be patient and get to know those they like by talking over long periods of time, rather than probing each others Bacardi drenched tonsils after one nights' rave. How can you trust someone with those standards?
I think that by having sex in a relationship too early you are risking it. By bringing it to consummation before you fully know, trust and are committed to one another, you may find yourselves lacking fidelity to one another before long. The perfect relationship I believe waits until marriage, when the couple are clearly stating to the world that they intend with every fibre of their respective beings to stand by the other through everything. The intimacy of sex will be so much better once there are no doubts about the other. Our culture can sometimes reduce sex to an act to obtain pleasure. While sex is without a doubt pleasureable, I think it can be so much more than that when you have it reserved for only one person in your life. http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/01/04...und/index.html this article gave me some reassurance.
Making children take pledges they don't understand is pointless, it's why these people believe in adult baptism after all (presuming this is a US evangelical thing).
Originally Posted by Lorenzo_H: I've realised that the chance of you getting offered sex by any particular person is inversely proportional to how much you want it.
Here's my 2 cents on Romance:
Think of the logic of attraction - I think that the human mind, before it is willing to let the body have sex with someone, needs to feel safe with them. If you want to sleep with someone, and you give it away by being flattering, flirty or suggestive, it automatically lets the other person know what you are up to. If on the other hand you seem to not be interested in them, in their subconcious they feel less sexually threatened by you, and therefore (perhaps over the course of x amount of time) they then become very attracted, and wonder what it would be like if you did like them in that way. If you continue to ignore them in that way, I've heard it described like a cat and string - that is to say, when you dangle yarn or string above a cat, just out of its reach, it will go crazy jumping over backwards to grasp it. Once you let the cat have the string, it merely looks at it for a few moments, then forgets about it and walks away.
In essence, I say that you should withdraw yourself from the mindset of "when and how might I get into her pants" whenever you meet a nice girl, like most guys (including myself sometimes!). That mentality actually reduces the chances of exactly that happening. Instead be friendly and genuine. For instance, with my current GF, I did not actually go out with her until around 6 months after first meeting her. I didn't rush anything, but instead was polite and didn't give away that I was after her. I also hate the fact that many people in our culture use alcohol to speed the whole romance process up. Some people aren't willing to put in the effort to get to know each other sober, so instead they choose to meet at a party, smashed. I think more people should just be patient and get to know those they like by talking over long periods of time, rather than probing each others Bacardi drenched tonsils after one nights' rave. How can you trust someone with those standards?
I think that by having sex in a relationship too early you are risking it. By bringing it to consummation before you fully know, trust and are committed to one another, you may find yourselves lacking fidelity to one another before long. The perfect relationship I believe waits until marriage, when the couple are clearly stating to the world that they intend with every fibre of their respective beings to stand by the other through everything. The intimacy of sex will be so much better once there are no doubts about the other. Our culture can sometimes reduce sex to an act to obtain pleasure. While sex is without a doubt pleasureable, I think it can be so much more than that when you have it reserved for only one person in your life. http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/01/04...und/index.html this article gave me some reassurance.
Apologies if a little OT? lol...
That isn´t me at all.....I think my problem is that I am extremly shy and kind of anti-social to a certain degree....I don´t drink, I don´t go to discos and "clubs"...so I end up flying under the radar and not being noticed.....
but enough OT.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr: Making children take pledges they don't understand is pointless, it's why these people believe in adult baptism after all (presuming this is a US evangelical thing).
I once saw somewhere that amongst the people that took the virginity pledge the rate of oral and anal sex was a lot higher than the general population.
So I´m not so sure the problem is that the young people don´t understand the pledge....the point is that people will do with the pledge the same they do with everything else....they will find loopholes.
I think that while virginity pledges don't prevent sex before marriage, in my mind, it does prevent girls from making stupid decisions concerning sex when they're between high-school and college. 21 isn't outta college, but you do have a college education and have a better chance of future employment rather than an 18-year old who just graduated from high school.
Bah if it's Gods will for everyone to have sex after a certain time or after marriage, why are we able to sex and impreganate quite possibly, in most cases at the age of 13? THE CHURCH LIES I TELL YOU, LIES!
i love you god, please secure me a place in heaven
Originally Posted by Ronin: I once saw somewhere that amongst the people that took the virginity pledge the rate of oral and anal sex was a lot higher than the general population.
Hmmmm...... Care to send a couple of them over here?
On a related thought, what girls/boys don't do oral? that's just rude....
Originally Posted by HoreTore: On a related thought, what girls/boys don't do oral? that's just rude....
Lots, actually, quite a few people don't like doing it and a significant number don't like recieving it either. On relationships, I think Lorenzo has a point (though sooner or later you have to move in and a certain amount of sexual threat seems to be attractive.) Life is complicated.
About the pledge, what this indicates is that people don't take it seriously and many probably don't have a concept of an honourable word. I have a friend working for a charity in Texas right now, she says that a lot of parents use Christianity to control their children, which just makes the children two-faced. I also heard that only around 12% of Americans will admit to being atheist, I find that a rather low number when you look at American culture.
Barrack Obama may well be an etheist, for example, the story of his Church attendence seems to suggest that he doesn't obsess about taking communion every Sunday.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla: Lots, actually, quite a few people don't like doing it and a significant number don't like recieving it either.
I will accept the first part of that sentence...but the second part seems to be fiction at the very least...
Originally Posted by Ronin: I will accept the first part of that sentence...but the second part seems to be fiction at the very least...
I suppose it depends on your partner's competancy, mostly though I think it's a cultural objection. I have heard women in particular say they just don't like the idea. Since it's a cultural objection they've probably never tried it.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla: I also heard that only around 12% of Americans will admit to being atheist, I find that a rather low number when you look at American culture.
Doesn't surprise me at all. Very few people I know are adamant about declaring the non-existence of God. On the other hand, many aren't very avidly religious. Runs roughly "well, I believe God exists, but I distrust religion so I'll just do my own thing while acknowledging a vague entity called God."
These "unchurched" may be functionally atheists as far as society would feel their impact, but many such would deny the "atheist" label.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla: a lot of parents use Christianity to control their children, which just makes the children two-faced.
This isn't an issue I hear raised very often, but it has caused me some concern. Maybe I just get too easily freaked out by things, but the talk I hear about 'family values' from US evangelicals is borderline disturbing. It's almost like families are turning into mini-cults; this isn't natural, and it wasn't how the family functioned historically. It does seem to have become quite tied with Christianity, although I can't understand why - the Bible mentions treating your neighbour well more than your family. I can think of a few qoutes off the top of my head, for example Jesus saying he comes to bring the sword of division between families, at one point he even tells us to hate our family before we can come to God through him (although it translates more as love less - getting our priorities right and not being like animals caring only for people based on biological connections), that contradict these views.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr: This isn't an issue I hear raised very often, but it has caused me some concern. Maybe I just get too easily freaked out by things, but the talk I hear about 'family values' from US evangelicals is borderline disturbing. It's almost like families are turning into mini-cults; this isn't natural, and it wasn't how the family functioned historically. It does seem to have become quite tied with Christianity, although I can't understand why - the Bible mentions treating your neighbour well more than your family. I can think of a few qoutes off the top of my head, for example Jesus saying he comes to bring the sword of division between families, at one point he even tells us to hate our family before we can come to God through him (although it translates more as love less - getting our priorities right and not being like animals caring only for people based on biological connections), that contradict these views.
there are plenty of people that label themselves as Christian that would be at the top of Jesus **** list if he indeed came back some day....this is hardly news, it has been like this throughout history.