Pledging abstinence more dangerous than not pledging, experts say

  • Thread starter Thread starter Madaglan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Madaglan

Guest
I have pasted this story for easier reading and discussion. The full link can be found at the end.

What do you think about the results of this test?

Study: Abstinence May Lead to Risky Acts
By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer

NEW HAVEN, Conn. - Teens who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are more likely to take chances with other kinds of sex that increase the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, a study of 12,000 adolescents suggests.

The report by Yale and Columbia University researchers could help explain their earlier findings that teens who pledged abstinence are just as likely to have STDs as their peers.

The latest study, published in the April issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health, found that teens pledging virginity until marriage are more likely to have oral and anal sex than other teens who have not had intercourse. That behavior, however, “puts you at risk,” said Hannah Brueckner, assistant professor of sociology at Yale and one of the study’s authors.

Among virgins, boys who have pledged abstinence were four times more likely to have had anal sex, according to the study. Overall, pledgers were six times more likely to have oral sex than teens who have remained abstinent but not as part of a pledge.

The pledging group was also less likely to use condoms during their first sexual experience or get tested for STDs, the researchers found.

Data for the study was taken from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. An in-school questionnaire was given to a nationally representative sample of students in grades 7-12 and followed up with a series of in-home interviews roughly one, two, and six years later. It was funded in part by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (news - web sites).

Leslee Unruh, president of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse in Sioux Falls, S.D., called the study “bogus,” disputing that those involved had pledged true “abstinence.”

“Kids who pledge abstinence are taught that any word that has ‘sex’ in it is considered a sexual activity,” Unruh said. “Therefore oral sex is sex, and they are staying away.”

Millions of teens have signed written pledges or verbally promised to abstain from sex, part of a church-led effort to discourage premarital sex and the spread of disease. President Bush (news - web sites) has boosted funding for abstinence-only education in schools.

Critics say that education needs to be coupled with safe-sex education to be effective.

“If adolescents only had sex in monogamous, married relationships, by definition there would be no STDs,” Brueckner said, echoing President Bush’s remarks in last year’s State of the Union address. “But the majority of adolescents don’t live like that. They do have sex.”

Last year, the same research team found that 88 percent of teens who pledge abstinence end up having sex before marriage, compared with 99 percent of teens who do not make a pledge.

story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=5&u=/ap/20050318/ap_on_re_us/virginity_stds_2
 
Teens engaging in oral “sex” and anal “sex” and who pledge abstinance are breaking their word. One thing is correct, they do need education, but about the definition of sex and what abstinance means.

John
 
If this didn’t involve the possible ruin of young lives, I would have laughed while reading this! I’m not normally given to conspiracy theories, but this sounds like some kind of evil collaboration, cynically thinking we’re all stupid.
 
40.png
Madaglan:
IThe latest study, published in the April issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health, found that teens pledging virginity until marriage are more likely to have oral and anal sex than other teens who have not had intercourse.
Did anybody else pick up on this?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
 
Originally Posted by vern humphrey:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Madaglan
IThe latest study, published in the April issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health, found that teens pledging virginity until marriage are more likely to have oral and anal sex than other teens who have not had intercourse.
**

Did anybody else pick up on this?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
The first time I didn’t catch onto that, but the second time around I did. I don’t know how anyone can consider anal sex as “not” intercourse.

Is this study implying that the pledge itself somehow causes young teens to conduct these sexual behaviors?
 
So we’re back to square one: abstinence = NO risk of STDs or pregnancies, disordered sexual acts = disease and unwanted births.
Nothing new under the sun, then, ay? 😃
 
I know, I know! They all picked up the Clinton definition of “having sex” and as long as it wasn’t vaginal intercourse then you aren’t having sex! Yeah right. I am sure that the kind of teens who sincerely pledge abstinence think that they can do anything BUT…

Lisa N
 
I heard a presentation once by an public health nurse who worked in city schools
you would be amazed at the things that kids do not to do…it
if that makes sense

although I’m told that line of thinking is common in a lot of the world

I’m reminded of some studies form a few years back that showed that rate of masterbation in teens from the Southern United States was much lower than in the North and they couldn’t figure out why until a companion study showed that they were having intercourse instead
 
there are three kinds of “facts” defined in so-called studies like this, as Mark Twain would say, lies, damn lies, and statistics. you can make a poll produce any results you want it to if you are pushing an agenda
 
I’m against abstinence programs.

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

I’m FOR Chastity programs. Sounds like semantics, but it is not. Read the Catholic Answer’s tract Pure Love and you will see what I mean. That is, abstinence merely promotes no sex and makes selfish appeals. “I won’t have sex so I won’t get pregnant” “I won’t have sex so I won’t get a disease.” A program based on me, me, me is simply wrongheaded and promotes a what-can-I-get-away-with mentality.

Scott
 
this study isn’t saying anything about abstinence, but about the pledges. the criticism so far in the posts seem to imply that these pledges are automatically good and valid.

as for the form of the study, for better or worse, this is just analysis of existing data. given the description, it seems that they fished out all the questionaires that had a “no” answer to the question “have you ever had intercourse?” and then divide them into “pledge” and “no pledge” and then made statistical comparisons of the two groups. if there were questionaires that said no to intercourse, but yes to anal sex, the kids might be ignorant. if the question asked about “vaginal intercourse” then such kids would just be honest. as to validity of the statistics, there is not enough information in the report.

if there is any validity at all to this, i think we should examine the circumstances of making these pledges. have the pledges become more important than the substance of the promise? maybe some of these ‘church-led’ campaigns accidently apply authoritative pressure or the kids feel peer pressure from friends. maybe the pledges aren’t honest in the first place. if that is what the abstinence advocate was trying say, she didn’t do it right. saying that they didn’t pledge ‘real’ abstinence (as opposed to saying that they made a pledge and then broke it) is exactly what homosexuals do when someone turns away from the gay lifestyle. they just say, “well he wasn’t really gay in the first place.” kinda lame if you ask me.

what i really don’t get is the last two lines.
Last year, the same research team found that 88 percent of teens who pledge abstinence end up having sex before marriage, compared with 99 percent of teens who do not make a pledge.
this seems to be giving an example of how this same team has come up with crazy conclusions before. if only 10% of all kids make the pledge, this says that only about 21 kids per 1000 marry without ever having had any kind of sex at all (which i would assume means any activity that involves the genitalia, leading to or even trying to lead to orgasm.) is that possible? they are saying that only about 0.21% of all kids in america abstain from sex chastfully. if the number of kids who are making this pledge were 90%, the number of total chaste teens would still only be about 11%. could that be true? since i know that 90% don’t make the pledge, then they are saying that less than 11% of teens are chaste. i don’t know enough to know what to think about that.

that sure casts doubt on the study for me. i still don’t buy into the public pledge thing. isn’t it a little like the scarlet letter, but in the opposite vein? isn’t it like a “well at least it’s not a big red A” badge? i don’t have any experience with this. maybe you parents could clue me in.

p.s. i really agree with scott
 
Actually the primary meaning of sexual intercourse is coitus and “anal sex” and “oral sex” wouldn’t count thus as sexual intercourse.

dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sexual%20intercourse

I don’t think it’s a good idea to extend the definition of sexual intercourse to those things as sexual intercourse is profoundly different from those things. For example, sexual intercourse will consummate a marriage which for Christians is a sacrament. “Anal sex” and “oral sex” won’t consummate a marriage.
 
Here is the what they asked:
Have you ever had sexual intercourse? When we say
sexual intercourse, we mean when a male inserts his pXXXX
into a female’s vXXXXX.
I found that by following the links in the articles. I have placed the XXX in place myself in case the question is not suitable for this internet forum. There are no XXX in the original. To which the responses were:

12226 no [skip to the next section]
8274 yes
159 refused [skip to the next section]
82 don’t know [skip to the next section]
5 not applicable [skip to the next section]

However, this was from only one of the sets of interviews. There was a lot of data to sort through, and I just went in to find the type of questions.

Naturally while I was there I looked into how they asked the questions about contraception. And naturally, they listed “rhythm (safe time)” as one and did not list NFP. Although, I would be surprised to find a 15 year old using it.
 
The FIRST paragraph was all I needed to read.

Teens who pledge abstinance ‘will have problems’! THat a bunch of bunk!
Tell that tothe generation BEFORE the Sexual Revolutiono f the 1960’s AND the generation before Contraception was considered ‘ok’ in 1930?

If My parents didn’t abstain, I don’t think I would be here!

Lord, Have Mercy on US All!
Edwin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top