American Teens fail Chastity Vow

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/10/1078594428244.html



Almost 90 per cent of teenagers who pledged not to have sex before marriage did not live up to their vows, a study has found.

But a vow to refrain from premarital sex tended to delay the start of sexual intercourse by 18 months, compared with teenagers who made no such pledge.

The adolescents who took virginity pledges also married earlier and had fewer sexual partners than the other teenagers surveyed, according to study author Peter Bearman, of the sociology department at Columbia University.

Of the 12,000 teenagers surveyed for the study, 88 per cent of those who pledged chastity reported having had sexual intercourse before they married, Dr Bearman told a forum on the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.

The researchers tested the participants for three common sexually transmitted infections - chlamydia, gonorrhoea and trichomoniasis - and found that the rates were almost identical for the teenagers who took pledges and those who did not.

The findings challenge the assumptions underlying the policies of the Bush Administration and private groups that urge virginity pledges as part of promoting abstinence before marriage.




Well, I managed to retain my chastity as a teen, and I didn't even take the vow. Sheer willpower.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Well, I managed to retain my chastity as a teen, and I didn't even take the vow. Sheer willpower.

Is that what it's called? :D

[RandFan]

There are lies damned lies and statistics. Of course statistics that concour with our world view are good and those that don't, well they are to be questioned. :D

But a vow to refrain from premarital sex tended to delay the start of sexual intercourse by 18 months, compared with teenagers who made no such pledge.

The adolescents who took virginity pledges also married earlier and had fewer sexual partners than the other teenagers surveyed, according to study author Peter Bearman, of the sociology department at Columbia University. [/b] The numbers, aside from the STD rates, seem quite impressive to me. Would those who think that teaching abstinence is a waste of time also think that such numbers have any value when considering teen pregnancy and emotional maturity and development. Or are they inconsequential and the lack of supporting data not to be considered when judging this study?

[Tricky]

One of the problems, researchers found, is that virginity "pledgers" are less likely to use condoms.

"It's difficult to simultaneously prepare for sex and say you're not going to have sex."

This has been exactly what realistic people have been saying all along. You simply cannot stop kids from having sex. You can only make them ill-prepared for it.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Well, I managed to retain my chastity as a teen, and I didn't even take the vow. Sheer willpower.

It's almost a sin to pass up a straight line that good. Thank you for providing it, just thinking of all the many possible responses will keep me smiling for days :)

Almost 90 per cent of teenagers who pledged not to have sex before marriage did not live up to their vows...

This warms my heart. America does stand for something! USA! USA! USA! :cool:

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tricky
This has been exactly what realistic people have been saying all along. You simply cannot stop kids from having sex. You can only make them ill-prepared for it. Tricky, with all due respect. I don't know of anyone who actually believes that you can stop kids from having sex. This is one of the largest straw men ever constructed.

The goal of abstinence programs is to increase the number of adolescents who wait until they are older or are married before they engage in sexual intercourse.

According to the statistics cited the program has accomplished this goal. Admittedly it has not according to these statistics is lowered STD rates.

However, 10% did live up to their vows and there was a delay in the start of intercourse by 18 months. This would give any young girls who might get pregnant 18 months to mature before they had to face the prospect of an abortion or full term pregnancy. I think this is significant.

The researchers tested the participants for three common sexually transmitted infections - chlamydia, gonorrhoea and trichomoniasis - and found that the rates were almost identical for the teenagers who took pledges and those who did not. If the rates are indeed identical then there is nothing lost since statistically the rates are the same. There is however something gained in additional time of not being pressured into doing something that you are not prepared or ready for.

I think abstinence programs coupled with traditional sex education are the most effective.

RandFan.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
Tricky, with all due respect. I don't know of anyone who actually believes that you can stop kids from having sex. This is one of the largest straw men ever constructed.

The goal of abstinence programs is to increase the number of adolescents who wait until they are older or are married before they engage in sexual intercourse.

According to the statistics cited the program has accomplished this goal. Admittedly it has not according to these statistics is lowered STD rates.

However, 10% did live up to their vows and there was a delay in the start of intercourse by 18 months. This would give any young girls who might get pregnant 18 months to mature before they had to face the prospect of an abortion or full term pregnancy. I think this is significant.

If the rates are indeed identical then there is nothing lost since statistically the rates are the same. There is however something gained in additional time of not being pressured into doing something that you are not prepared or ready for.

I think abstinence programs coupled with traditional sex education are the most effective.

RandFan.

I am all in favour of kids not starting too young. But the chastity vow was that they would wait till marriage to start doing the wild thing. An Australian Anglican Minister actually said a few days ago he thought is was good for couples to live together before marrying, so that they knew each other better and would have a better chance of their marriage lasting. His Bishop let it known he disagreed, but I think the times are a-changin.

[Skeptic]

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Those who took a vow not to have sex before marriage might have failed to hold to it completely, but it seems that they were pretty succesful to at least PARTIALLY fulfill it--18 months later to engage in sex than those who didn't.

Seems pretty effective to me, especially since one and a half years are an eternity for a teenager, and even if they occassionally had sex, it is at an older age.

I AM surprised, though, that there is no lower rate of STDs as well, which should be the case. This seems not to mesh well with the "18 months later" data.

[Earthborn]

I am not convinced that this proves that virginity pledges delay teens in having sex. Such a pledge might very well have no effect at all and still cause the same result.

The research compares teens who made the pledge and teens that didn't. I think it is safe to assume that those who did are more likely to come from religious families and are more likely to wait a bit longer than the average teen anyway, with or without pledge. Instead of assuming that the pledge makes teens more likely to wait, we can also assume that those who are more likely to wait are also more likely to pledge.

Looking at it like this, I am not all that impressed by the difference. Here's a group of kids who are motivated to wait until marriage, who are willing to make a pledge that they will, and they are as a group only 10% more successful at doing so as those who make no such pledge and don't even want to make one.

[Zep]

I happen to agree with RandFan in the main: intelligent abstinence PLUS sensible sex education would seem to be worthwhile.

But it remains true - you just cannot stop teens having sex. Like it or not, it's hormones a'go-go, and there they go! And it seems that sex education, REAL honest-to-God all-the-facts-on-the-table sex education, would make the biggest impact on all the negative factors of pre-marital sex.

But alas, that seems to be something that conservative governments the world over (note I do not single out the USA) just can't seem to get a handle on. We too have the anti-sex brigade shouting loudly: "Don't tell kids about sex or they might DO it! They will be ruined for life and it will be the end of the world as we know it!"

Incidentally, AUP, if your avatar is you then it wasn't willpower. You little bleeder! :)

[Ladewig]

RandFan-
However, 10% did live up to their vows

More accurately, 10% (or thereabouts) said that they lived up to their vows. Same with the 18 month figure.

[Cecil]

Originally posted by RandFan
However, 10% did live up to their vows and there was a delay in the start of intercourse by 18 months. This would give any young girls who might get pregnant 18 months to mature before they had to face the prospect of an abortion or full term pregnancy. I think this is significant. Repeat after me. Correlation does not imply causation.

I would say that the teens who are willing to take a vow of chastity are more likely to see sex as a deep intimate connection rather than a recreational activity. Therefore, they would tend to be the people who engage in sex later anyway - probably once they've found the right person. I count myself in this category; I took a vow when I was 12, and while I certainly don't intend to keep it I do want to wait until I find someone I care deeply about. I don't think I would see this any differently had I not vowed.

I doubt that the simple act of taking a vow will cause people to wait - the real cause of this delay, IMHO, is the personal priorities and opinions of the person.

[Cecil]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Looking at it like this, I am not all that impressed by the difference. Here's a group of kids who are motivated to wait until marriage, who are willing to make a pledge that they will, and they are as a group only 10% more successful at doing so as those who make no such pledge and don't even want to make one. But perhaps many of the non-vowing group were just as motivated to wait; they simply didn't vow to do so.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Cecil
I would say that the teens who are willing to take a vow of chastity are more likely to see sex as a deep intimate connection rather than a recreational activity. I understand. But you have not established this. Are we to accept the study on face value or not? What data do we have to show that the numbers are not significant? The comparison group who did not take the vow was not specifically students who refused, right? Wouldn't any group contain an equal number of students who were willing to wait?


Therefore, they would tend to be the people who engage in sex later anyway All things being equal there should be an equal number of individuals, like you, in the group who did not take the vow who would tend to be people who engage in sex later, right?

Am I missing something about the study? Were all of the students sampled from the same group thus segragating all of those who were willing to wait into the abstinence group? If the answer is yes then the data must be compared to national rates. Wouldn't you agree? I have some problems with this study.

I doubt that the simple act of taking a vow will cause people to wait - the real cause of this delay, IMHO, is the personal priorities and opinions of the person. I don't know about taking vows but according tho the WHO, abstinence programs that are used with a comprehensive sex curiculum are statistically helpful in reducing STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

[RandFan]

FACT: A World Health Organization literature review concluded that there is:

Many sexuality education programs have been able to successfully promote abstinence as well as effective contraceptive use.

(SIECUS. "Myths and Facts About Sexuality Education." available: www.siecus.org)

[Cecil]

Originally posted by RandFan
The comparison group who did not take the vow was not specifically students who refused, right? Wouldn't any group contain an equal number of students who were willing to wait?


All things being equal there should be an equal number of individuals, like you, in the group who did not take the vow who would tend to be people who engage in sex later, right? Maybe. I think we need more information about the circumstances surrounding the vow to come to any meaningful conclusions. Were they pressured into taking the vow by their church? Did they come to the decision on their own? Was the subject brought up to everybody in class? Were the students pressured into it by the school? Did the students take the vow in front of their classmates? How old were they when they took the vow? All of these questions could have an impact on which teens took a vow, especially the latter. You cannot reasonably expect a 10-year-old (or probably even a 13-year old) to have full understanding of what sex entails.

Maybe they should have all been interviewed about their opinions on sex, when the vow was taken, etc.

[Hexxenhammer]

If you don't want your teenager to have sex, don't buy them any Clearasil.

[Cecil]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
If you don't want your teenager to have sex, don't buy them any Clearasil. Or just make them wear masks in public...

Hmm... :D

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
If you don't want your teenager to have sex, don't buy them any Clearasil.

I've been told that a little nookie will clear up zits. Old wives tale? :D

[The Don]

Originally posted by RandFan
I understand. But you have not established this. Are we to accept the study on face value or not?
Almost certainly no. As has been pointed out in this thread, the type of "young adult" who is willing to take a chastity vow is quite different from the general pool of "young adults"
Originally posted by RandFan
What data do we have to show that the numbers are not significant? The comparison group who did not take the vow was not specifically students who refused, right? Wouldn't any group contain an equal number of students who were willing to wait?
For the purpose of this argument let's pretnd that of the general population 50% were willing to wait at the start of the period.
In the vow taking group we have to assume that 100% are willing to wait at the start of the period. There's already a significant difference.
In the vow taking group there's also an incentive to lie about having had sex so it is likely that sexual activity will have been under reported. In the general population I have no idea but among heterosexual males I would suggest that there is a risk of over reporting (bragadocio and all that)
Originally posted by RandFan
All things being equal there should be an equal number of individuals, like you, in the group who did not take the vow who would tend to be people who engage in sex later, right?

Am I missing something about the study? Were all of the students sampled from the same group thus segragating all of those who were willing to wait into the abstinence group?
Well we at least know that there are some people in the general pool who were unwilling to take the vow and therefore are more likely to have sex. This certainly applies a significan skew to the results.
Originally posted by RandFan
If the answer is yes then the data must be compared to national rates. Wouldn't you agree? I have some problems with this study.
The only acceptable control group for the vow takers would be a group who were WILLING to take the vow but did not
Originally posted by RandFan
I don't know about taking vows but according tho the WHO, abstinence programs that are used with a comprehensive sex curiculum are statistically helpful in reducing STDs and unwanted pregnancies.
Teaching abstinence is a fine thing but it should not be the ONLY form of sex education. There is a group of people who for doctrinal reasons consider teaching about contraception and how to avoid STDs "bad" becuase it encourages kids to have sex.

What this study indicates is that the group of kids who are willing to take a chastity vow (and therefore who MAY have been more influenced by this doctrine) are less likely to use contraception (and thus are putting themselves at risk).

IMO the only responsible way to approach sex education is to include abstinence as part of an overall sex and relationship education process.

[Oleron]

I have no problem with abstinence being taught as part of a sensible sex education curriculum.
What I do have a problem with is churches inventing schemes like the 'Silver Ring Thing' to leverage Christianity on the back of an abstinence program.
I have an even bigger problem when the state funds these Christian initiatives to the tune of millions of dollars.
Lobbyists are right now selling these programs to politicians with the promise that it will play great with the bible belt. There's votes in those rings.

Meanwhile genuine educators can't get a dime for their 'liberal, loose talk' about contraception and sensible family planning.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Cecil
Repeat after me. Correlation does not imply causation.


LOL!

To be blunt, I bet you the ugly people were a lot more likely to take the vow than the good looking ones.

[MRC_Hans]

Obviously such a survey is very uncertain, alone because it is impossible to establish credible controls. Those who took the wow were, of course, more motivated to engage later in sex than those not taking it. So the active group is not representative of young people at large. They were motivated, and no doubt, they were subjected to some kind of follow-up to remind them of the wow. Thus, it can not be established what they would have done, had they not been involved with this activty.

Of course, it does show that focus on the matter makes a difference.

Finally, one might ask: What exactly are the benefits?

They had their sexual debut later. so what? Is that a benefit in itself?

They had fewer partners. Is that a benefit?

They married earlier. Is that a benefit? I wonder what their divorce rate will be.

They did not have lower incidence of STD. Now that would have been a benefit.

Frankly, I think that whichever way the survey is interpreted, the wow idea is shown to be a failure.

Hans

[Luke T.]

I think it is interesting that those who took the vow had fewer sexual partners but the same "rate" of STDs. There is a clue there, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

[Tony]

Originally posted by pgwenthold

To be blunt, I bet you the ugly people were a lot more likely to take the vow than the good looking ones.


It's about time someone stated the obvious.


There are only a few types of people that would take this vow:

1. The fundamentally religious.

2. Dorks, nerds, and other people who wouldn't be getting laid anyway.

3. Those who are scared of sex.



I think programs like this, much like the D.A.R.E program (where we had to take a pledge not to do illegal drugs), are more likely to give comfort and assurance to people who are pushing this agenda than they are going to prevent kids from engaging in the "bad" behavior.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/10/1078594428244.html



Well, I managed to retain my chastity as a teen, and I didn't even take the vow. Sheer willpower.

Or, the chicks just didn't want to touch you. :p

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony



It's about time someone stated the obvious.


There are only a few types of people that would take this vow:

1. The fundamentally religious.

2. Dorks, nerds, and other people who wouldn't be getting laid anyway.

3. Those who are scared of sex.



I think programs like this, much like the D.A.R.E program (where we had to take a pledge not to do illegal drugs), are more likely to give comfort and assurance to people who are pushing this agenda than they are going to prevent kids from engaging in the "bad" behavior.

Yep, that about sums it up.... trying to think of a category you missed...

4) Those that do it to get an authority figure off their butt.

5) Those that have already have had sex but think signing it and showing it to their friends would be a hoot.

I remember in high school getting into an argument with someone because I refused to sign some pledge about drinking and driving. I couldn't see the point. I didn't drink then. Why I needed to sign a promise to not break the law and act like a moron seemed a bit silly. I was the only person in the room that refused. I was also the only person that didn't drink. Go figure.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by The Don
What this study indicates is that the group of kids who are willing to take a chastity vow (and therefore who MAY have been more influenced by this doctrine) are less likely to use contraception (and thus are putting themselves at risk). As a group, statistically no more risk than any one else since they statistically have the exact same STD rate. This fact cannot be ignored.

[The Don]

Originally posted by RandFan
As a group, statistically no more risk than any one else since they statistically have the exact same STD rate. This fact cannot be ignored.
Agreed but given that they are allegedly having less sex with fewer partners the key measure CDPS (Clap Dose Per Shag) is higher.

If we (admittedly unsafely) extraploate out their attitude to contraception and apply it to the control group's attitude to sex we end up with more cases. Ignorance and horniness are a dangerous combination

[Luke T.]

I don't think being ugly would prevent a girl from getting sex if she wanted it. Being ugly might hamper a boy's sex life, though.

Which is better, being ugly and not having sex, or being good looking and getting an STD?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by The Don

Agreed but given that they are allegedly having less sex with fewer partners the key measure CDPS (Clap Dose Per Shag) is higher.

If we (admittedly unsafely) extraploate out their attitude to contraception and apply it to the control group's attitude to sex we end up with more cases. Ignorance and horniness are a dangerous combination

How much is ignorance, and how much is willful neglect? What kid doesn't know about condoms and safe sex these days?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by The Don
If we (admittedly unsafely) extraploate out their attitude to contraception and apply it to the control group's attitude to sex we end up with more cases. Why would we do that? There are two methods and both yield the same result as they relate to STDs let's not put something into the equation that is not there.

Unless you are stating the following.

1.) Those who took vows were more likely to take the vow than the control group.

2.) If we had taught abstinence only to the control then it would have resulted in the same rate of sex but less knowledge or propensity to use condoms.

Therefore we could extrapolate that there would be much higher rates of STD.

I posit that the conclusion is unwarented because the study does not give us enough information to come to that conclusion.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Luke T.

How much is ignorance, and how much is willful neglect? What kid doesn't know about condoms and safe sex these days?
I'm not sure. I was presuming that those in the taking the vow group wouldn't be more neglectful (if that's a word) and that it was ignorance or perhaps lack of accessibility which was driving their lack of use. I have no evidence whatsoever to support this presumption.
Originally posted by RandFan

I posit that the conclusion is unwarented because the study does not give us enough information to come to that conclusion.
I agree, I was trying to illustrate what might happen and I already indicated that the extrapolation was unsafe. Cut me some slack for goodness sake.

It is however no more unsafe than making any other observations based upon this seriously flawed study other then mere statements of fact.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by The Don
I agree, I was trying to illustrate what might happen and I already indicated that the extrapolation was unsafe. Cut me some slack for goodness sake.

It is however no more unsafe than making any other observations based upon this seriously flawed study other then mere statements of fact. I was just trying to be clear. Which is to say "I was trying to feed my insatiable ego". :D