boater wrote:
Keith nuttle wrote:

Boater wrote:
Premarital Abstinence Pledges Ineffective, Study Finds
Teenagers Who Make Such Promises Are Just as Likely to Have Sex, and
Less Likely to Use Protection, the Data Indicate

By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 29, 2008; A02

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."

The study is the latest in a series that have raised questions about
programs that focus on encouraging abstinence until marriage,
including those that specifically ask students to publicly declare
their intention to remain virgins. The new analysis, however, goes
beyond earlier analyses by focusing on teens who had similar values
about sex and other issues before they took a virginity pledge.

"Previous studies would compare a mixture of apples and oranges,"
Rosenbaum said. "I tried to pull out the apples and compare only the
apples to other apples."

The findings are reigniting the debate about the effectiveness of
abstinence-focused sexual education just as Congress and the new
Obama administration are about to reconsider the more than $176
million in annual funding for such programs.

"This study again raises the issue of why the federal government is
continuing to invest in abstinence-only programs," said Sarah Brown
of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.
"What have we gained if we only encourage young people to delay sex
until they are older, but then when they do become sexually active
-- and most do well before marriage -- they don't protect themselves
or their partners?"

James Wagoner of the advocacy group Advocates for Youth agreed: "The
Democratic Congress needs to get its head out of the sand and get
real about sex education in America."

Proponents of such programs, however, dismissed the study as flawed
and argued that programs that focus on abstinence go much further
than simply asking youths to make a one-time promise to remain virgins.

"It is remarkable that an author who employs rigorous research
methodology would then compromise those standards by making wild,
ideologically tainted and inaccurate analysis regarding the content
of abstinence education programs," said Valerie Huber of the
National Abstinence Education Association.

Rosenbaum analyzed data collected by the federal government's
National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which gathered
detailed information from a representative sample of about 11,000
students in grades seven through 12 in 1995, 1996 and 2001.

Although researchers have analyzed data from that survey before to
examine abstinence education programs, the new study is the first to
use a more stringent method to account for other factors that could
influence the teens' behavior, such as their attitudes about sex
before they took the pledge.

Rosenbaum focused on about 3,400 students who had not had sex or
taken a virginity pledge in 1995. She compared 289 students who were
17 years old on average in 1996, when they took a virginity pledge,
with 645 who did not take a pledge but were otherwise similar. She
based that judgment on about 100 variables, including their
attitudes and their parents' attitudes about sex and their
perception of their friends' attitudes about sex and birth control.

"This study came about because somebody who decides to take a
virginity pledge tends to be different from the average American
teenager. The pledgers tend to be more religious. They tend to be
more conservative. They tend to be less positive about sex. There
are some striking differences," Rosenbaum said. "So comparing
pledgers to all non-pledgers doesn't make a lot of sense."

By 2001, Rosenbaum found, 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, vaginal intercourse, the age at which they first
had sex, or their number of sexual partners. More than half of both
groups had engaged in various types of sexual activity, had an
average of about three sexual partners and had had sex for the first
time by age 21 even if they were unmarried.

"It seems that pledgers aren't really internalizing the pledge,"
Rosenbaum said. "Participating in a program doesn't appear to be
motivating them to change their behavior. It seems like abstinence
has to come from an individual conviction rather than participating
in a program."

While there was no difference in the rate of sexually transmitted
diseases in the two groups, the percentage of students who reported
condom use was about 10 points lower for those who had taken the
pledge, and they were about 6 percentage points less likely to use
any form of contraception. For example, about 24 percent of those
who had taken a pledge said they always used a condom, compared with
about 34 percent of those who had not.

Rosenbaum attributed the difference to what youths learn about
condoms in abstinence-focused programs.

"There's been a lot of work that has found that teenagers who take
part in abstinence-only education have more negative views about
condoms," she said. "They tend not to give accurate information
about condoms and birth control."

But Huber disputed that charge.

"Abstinence education programs provide accurate information on the
level of protection offered through the typical use of condoms and
contraception," she said. "Students understand that while condoms
may reduce the risk of infection and/or pregnancy, they do not
remove the risk."


snerk


I wonder if the governor of Alaska has talked about condoms with her
younger daughter.

As usual spun to make it appear the pledges don't work. Based on
other reports of the same study those who take the pledge are less
likely to have sex until average age of 21 compared to about age 17
for the average American teen. To Quot CNN:


I believe the main point of the pledges was to prevent teenage
pregnancy, not stop sexual activity. I believe 21 is about the age of
the first marriage, so those who take the pledge are probably waiting
for their partner of their first marriage.


Trying to prevent teen pregnancies and the spread of STDs is a
worthwhile activity. Trying to put a stop to teen sexuality is an
exercise in futility and stupidity.

Nice editing, WAFA.

"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
D K wrote:
Boater wrote:
Premarital Abstinence Pledges Ineffective, Study Finds
Teenagers Who Make Such Promises Are Just as Likely to Have Sex, and
Less Likely to Use Protection, the Data Indicate

By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 29, 2008; A02

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."

The study is the latest in a series that have raised questions about
programs that focus on encouraging abstinence until marriage, including
those that specifically ask students to publicly declare their intention
to remain virgins. The new analysis, however, goes beyond earlier
analyses by focusing on teens who had similar values about sex and other
issues before they took a virginity pledge.

"Previous studies would compare a mixture of apples and oranges,"
Rosenbaum said. "I tried to pull out the apples and compare only the
apples to other apples."

The findings are reigniting the debate about the effectiveness of
abstinence-focused sexual education just as Congress and the new Obama
administration are about to reconsider the more than $176 million in
annual funding for such programs.

"This study again raises the issue of why the federal government is
continuing to invest in abstinence-only programs," said Sarah Brown of
the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. "What
have we gained if we only encourage young people to delay sex until they
are older, but then when they do become sexually active -- and most do
well before marriage -- they don't protect themselves or their
partners?"

James Wagoner of the advocacy group Advocates for Youth agreed: "The
Democratic Congress needs to get its head out of the sand and get real
about sex education in America."

Proponents of such programs, however, dismissed the study as flawed and
argued that programs that focus on abstinence go much further than
simply asking youths to make a one-time promise to remain virgins.

"It is remarkable that an author who employs rigorous research
methodology would then compromise those standards by making wild,
ideologically tainted and inaccurate analysis regarding the content of
abstinence education programs," said Valerie Huber of the National
Abstinence Education Association.

Rosenbaum analyzed data collected by the federal government's National
Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which gathered detailed
information from a representative sample of about 11,000 students in
grades seven through 12 in 1995, 1996 and 2001.

Although researchers have analyzed data from that survey before to
examine abstinence education programs, the new study is the first to use
a more stringent method to account for other factors that could
influence the teens' behavior, such as their attitudes about sex before
they took the pledge.

Rosenbaum focused on about 3,400 students who had not had sex or taken a
virginity pledge in 1995. She compared 289 students who were 17 years
old on average in 1996, when they took a virginity pledge, with 645 who
did not take a pledge but were otherwise similar. She based that
judgment on about 100 variables, including their attitudes and their
parents' attitudes about sex and their perception of their friends'
attitudes about sex and birth control.

"This study came about because somebody who decides to take a virginity
pledge tends to be different from the average American teenager. The
pledgers tend to be more religious. They tend to be more conservative.
They tend to be less positive about sex. There are some striking
differences," Rosenbaum said. "So comparing pledgers to all non-pledgers
doesn't make a lot of sense."

By 2001, Rosenbaum found, 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, vaginal
intercourse, the age at which they first had sex, or their number of
sexual partners. More than half of both groups had engaged in various
types of sexual activity, had an average of about three sexual partners
and had had sex for the first time by age 21 even if they were
unmarried.

"It seems that pledgers aren't really internalizing the pledge,"
Rosenbaum said. "Participating in a program doesn't appear to be
motivating them to change their behavior. It seems like abstinence has
to come from an individual conviction rather than participating in a
program."

While there was no difference in the rate of sexually transmitted
diseases in the two groups, the percentage of students who reported
condom use was about 10 points lower for those who had taken the pledge,
and they were about 6 percentage points less likely to use any form of
contraception. For example, about 24 percent of those who had taken a
pledge said they always used a condom, compared with about 34 percent of
those who had not.

Rosenbaum attributed the difference to what youths learn about condoms
in abstinence-focused programs.

"There's been a lot of work that has found that teenagers who take part
in abstinence-only education have more negative views about condoms,"
she said. "They tend not to give accurate information about condoms and
birth control."

But Huber disputed that charge.

"Abstinence education programs provide accurate information on the level
of protection offered through the typical use of condoms and
contraception," she said. "Students understand that while condoms may
reduce the risk of infection and/or pregnancy, they do not remove the
risk."


snerk


I wonder if the governor of Alaska has talked about condoms with her
younger daughter.

Take it to another group.

Harry Krause
2015 Rosedale Lane

There's more. Should we continue, WAFA?
As usual spun to make it appear the pledges don't work. Based on other
reports of the same study those who take the pledge are less likely to
have sex until average age of 21 compared to about age 17 for the average
American teen. To Quot CNN:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,475306,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/12/30/virginity.pledges/

I believe the main point of the pledges was to prevent teenage pregnancy,
not stop sexual activity. I believe 21 is about the age of the first
marriage, so those who take the pledge are probably waiting for their
partner of their first marriage.

There's nothing wrong with teaching abstinence as part of a larger sex
education curriculum. The problem is that there are people who think that
the ONLY thing kids should be taught is abstinence. I've seen surveys
mentioned which indicate that some outrageous number of kids - might've been
around 45% - get NO INFORMATION about sex from their parents. If they also
get NO INFORMATION at school.....

You can finish that last sentence.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...

Boater wrote:
Premarital Abstinence Pledges Ineffective, Study Finds
Teenagers Who Make Such Promises Are Just as Likely to Have Sex, and
Less Likely to Use Protection, the Data Indicate

By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 29, 2008; A02

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."

The study is the latest in a series that have raised questions about
programs that focus on encouraging abstinence until marriage, including
those that specifically ask students to publicly declare their intention
to remain virgins. The new analysis, however, goes beyond earlier
analyses by focusing on teens who had similar values about sex and other
issues before they took a virginity pledge.

"Previous studies would compare a mixture of apples and oranges,"
Rosenbaum said. "I tried to pull out the apples and compare only the
apples to other apples."

The findings are reigniting the debate about the effectiveness of
abstinence-focused sexual education just as Congress and the new Obama
administration are about to reconsider the more than $176 million in
annual funding for such programs.

"This study again raises the issue of why the federal government is
continuing to invest in abstinence-only programs," said Sarah Brown of
the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. "What
have we gained if we only encourage young people to delay sex until they
are older, but then when they do become sexually active -- and most do
well before marriage -- they don't protect themselves or their
partners?"

James Wagoner of the advocacy group Advocates for Youth agreed: "The
Democratic Congress needs to get its head out of the sand and get real
about sex education in America."

Proponents of such programs, however, dismissed the study as flawed and
argued that programs that focus on abstinence go much further than
simply asking youths to make a one-time promise to remain virgins.

"It is remarkable that an author who employs rigorous research
methodology would then compromise those standards by making wild,
ideologically tainted and inaccurate analysis regarding the content of
abstinence education programs," said Valerie Huber of the National
Abstinence Education Association.

Rosenbaum analyzed data collected by the federal government's National
Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which gathered detailed
information from a representative sample of about 11,000 students in
grades seven through 12 in 1995, 1996 and 2001.

Although researchers have analyzed data from that survey before to
examine abstinence education programs, the new study is the first to use
a more stringent method to account for other factors that could
influence the teens' behavior, such as their attitudes about sex before
they took the pledge.

Rosenbaum focused on about 3,400 students who had not had sex or taken a
virginity pledge in 1995. She compared 289 students who were 17 years
old on average in 1996, when they took a virginity pledge, with 645 who
did not take a pledge but were otherwise similar. She based that
judgment on about 100 variables, including their attitudes and their
parents' attitudes about sex and their perception of their friends'
attitudes about sex and birth control.

"This study came about because somebody who decides to take a virginity
pledge tends to be different from the average American teenager. The
pledgers tend to be more religious. They tend to be more conservative.
They tend to be less positive about sex. There are some striking
differences," Rosenbaum said. "So comparing pledgers to all non-pledgers
doesn't make a lot of sense."

By 2001, Rosenbaum found, 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, vaginal
intercourse, the age at which they first had sex, or their number of
sexual partners. More than half of both groups had engaged in various
types of sexual activity, had an average of about three sexual partners
and had had sex for the first time by age 21 even if they were
unmarried.

"It seems that pledgers aren't really internalizing the pledge,"
Rosenbaum said. "Participating in a program doesn't appear to be
motivating them to change their behavior. It seems like abstinence has
to come from an individual conviction rather than participating in a
program."

While there was no difference in the rate of sexually transmitted
diseases in the two groups, the percentage of students who reported
condom use was about 10 points lower for those who had taken the pledge,
and they were about 6 percentage points less likely to use any form of
contraception. For example, about 24 percent of those who had taken a
pledge said they always used a condom, compared with about 34 percent of
those who had not.

Rosenbaum attributed the difference to what youths learn about condoms
in abstinence-focused programs.

"There's been a lot of work that has found that teenagers who take part
in abstinence-only education have more negative views about condoms,"
she said. "They tend not to give accurate information about condoms and
birth control."

But Huber disputed that charge.

"Abstinence education programs provide accurate information on the level
of protection offered through the typical use of condoms and
contraception," she said. "Students understand that while condoms may
reduce the risk of infection and/or pregnancy, they do not remove the
risk."


snerk


I wonder if the governor of Alaska has talked about condoms with her
younger daughter.

As usual spun to make it appear the pledges don't work. Based on other
reports of the same study those who take the pledge are less likely to
have sex until average age of 21 compared to about age 17 for the average
American teen. To Quot CNN:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,475306,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/12/30/virginity.pledges/

I believe the main point of the pledges was to prevent teenage pregnancy,
not stop sexual activity. I believe 21 is about the age of the first
marriage, so those who take the pledge are probably waiting for their
partner of their first marriage.

There's nothing wrong with teaching abstinence as part of a larger sex
education curriculum. The problem is that there are people who think that
the ONLY thing kids should be taught is abstinence. I've seen surveys
mentioned which indicate that some outrageous number of kids - might've been
around 45% - get NO INFORMATION about sex from their parents. If they also
get NO INFORMATION at school.....

You can finish that last sentence.




Or they get the wrong information at home and at school.

On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 09:19:06 -0500, boater wrote:

Or they get the wrong information at home and at school.

When I was in the seventh grade, about 1960 everyone was sufficiently
knowledgable about sex. Everyone knew how to screw and what a condom
was for. Sex education by parents and schools was immaterial. By that
time everyone had been clued in by the older kids.

Casady

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


There's nothing wrong with teaching abstinence as part of a larger sex
education curriculum. The problem is that there are people who think that
the ONLY thing kids should be taught is abstinence. I've seen surveys
mentioned which indicate that some outrageous number of kids - might've
been around 45% - get NO INFORMATION about sex from their parents. If they
also get NO INFORMATION at school.....

You can finish that last sentence.



This has become all very complicated. After getting a lecture on respecting
girls and women, I entered my teen dating years with a very clear idea of
birth control. Basically it was a mental image of two grown men coming
after me with baseball bats. One would be the girl's father. The other
would be mine.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


There's nothing wrong with teaching abstinence as part of a larger sex
education curriculum. The problem is that there are people who think that
the ONLY thing kids should be taught is abstinence. I've seen surveys
mentioned which indicate that some outrageous number of kids - might've
been around 45% - get NO INFORMATION about sex from their parents. If
they also get NO INFORMATION at school.....

You can finish that last sentence.



This has become all very complicated. After getting a lecture on
respecting girls and women, I entered my teen dating years with a very
clear idea of birth control. Basically it was a mental image of two grown
men coming after me with baseball bats. One would be the girl's father.
The other would be mine.

Eisboch

My son got the same explanation. "Your girlfriends automatically become my
daughters. Capisce?" I told him there was no expiration date on that
arrangement. :-)

"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
D K wrote:
Boater wrote:
Premarital Abstinence Pledges Ineffective, Study Finds
Teenagers Who Make Such Promises Are Just as Likely to Have Sex, and
Less Likely to Use Protection, the Data Indicate

By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 29, 2008; A02

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."

The study is the latest in a series that have raised questions about
programs that focus on encouraging abstinence until marriage, including
those that specifically ask students to publicly declare their intention
to remain virgins. The new analysis, however, goes beyond earlier
analyses by focusing on teens who had similar values about sex and other
issues before they took a virginity pledge.

"Previous studies would compare a mixture of apples and oranges,"
Rosenbaum said. "I tried to pull out the apples and compare only the
apples to other apples."

The findings are reigniting the debate about the effectiveness of
abstinence-focused sexual education just as Congress and the new Obama
administration are about to reconsider the more than $176 million in
annual funding for such programs.

"This study again raises the issue of why the federal government is
continuing to invest in abstinence-only programs," said Sarah Brown of
the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. "What
have we gained if we only encourage young people to delay sex until they
are older, but then when they do become sexually active -- and most do
well before marriage -- they don't protect themselves or their
partners?"

James Wagoner of the advocacy group Advocates for Youth agreed: "The
Democratic Congress needs to get its head out of the sand and get real
about sex education in America."

Proponents of such programs, however, dismissed the study as flawed and
argued that programs that focus on abstinence go much further than
simply asking youths to make a one-time promise to remain virgins.

"It is remarkable that an author who employs rigorous research
methodology would then compromise those standards by making wild,
ideologically tainted and inaccurate analysis regarding the content of
abstinence education programs," said Valerie Huber of the National
Abstinence Education Association.

Rosenbaum analyzed data collected by the federal government's National
Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which gathered detailed
information from a representative sample of about 11,000 students in
grades seven through 12 in 1995, 1996 and 2001.

Although researchers have analyzed data from that survey before to
examine abstinence education programs, the new study is the first to use
a more stringent method to account for other factors that could
influence the teens' behavior, such as their attitudes about sex before
they took the pledge.

Rosenbaum focused on about 3,400 students who had not had sex or taken a
virginity pledge in 1995. She compared 289 students who were 17 years
old on average in 1996, when they took a virginity pledge, with 645 who
did not take a pledge but were otherwise similar. She based that
judgment on about 100 variables, including their attitudes and their
parents' attitudes about sex and their perception of their friends'
attitudes about sex and birth control.

"This study came about because somebody who decides to take a virginity
pledge tends to be different from the average American teenager. The
pledgers tend to be more religious. They tend to be more conservative.
They tend to be less positive about sex. There are some striking
differences," Rosenbaum said. "So comparing pledgers to all non-pledgers
doesn't make a lot of sense."

By 2001, Rosenbaum found, 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, vaginal
intercourse, the age at which they first had sex, or their number of
sexual partners. More than half of both groups had engaged in various
types of sexual activity, had an average of about three sexual partners
and had had sex for the first time by age 21 even if they were
unmarried.

"It seems that pledgers aren't really internalizing the pledge,"
Rosenbaum said. "Participating in a program doesn't appear to be
motivating them to change their behavior. It seems like abstinence has
to come from an individual conviction rather than participating in a
program."

While there was no difference in the rate of sexually transmitted
diseases in the two groups, the percentage of students who reported
condom use was about 10 points lower for those who had taken the pledge,
and they were about 6 percentage points less likely to use any form of
contraception. For example, about 24 percent of those who had taken a
pledge said they always used a condom, compared with about 34 percent of
those who had not.

Rosenbaum attributed the difference to what youths learn about condoms
in abstinence-focused programs.

"There's been a lot of work that has found that teenagers who take part
in abstinence-only education have more negative views about condoms,"
she said. "They tend not to give accurate information about condoms and
birth control."

But Huber disputed that charge.

"Abstinence education programs provide accurate information on the level
of protection offered through the typical use of condoms and
contraception," she said. "Students understand that while condoms may
reduce the risk of infection and/or pregnancy, they do not remove the
risk."


snerk


I wonder if the governor of Alaska has talked about condoms with her
younger daughter.

Take it to another group.

Harry Krause
2015 Rosedale Lane

There's more. Should we continue, WAFA?
As usual spun to make it appear the pledges don't work. Based on other
reports of the same study those who take the pledge are less likely to
have sex until average age of 21 compared to about age 17 for the average
American teen. To Quot CNN:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,475306,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/12/30/virginity.pledges/

I believe the main point of the pledges was to prevent teenage pregnancy,
not stop sexual activity. I believe 21 is about the age of the first
marriage, so those who take the pledge are probably waiting for their
partner of their first marriage.


Waiting longer might be a good thing, if it means people have had a chance
to outgrow the "nothing bad can happen to me" thing which is common to many
teenagers. Unfortunately, the foxnews article suggests that even if they
wait longer to have sex.....

"Both groups had about the same number of sexually transmitted diseases as
well and had, on average, three sexual partners. Teens who took the pledge
had 0.1 fewer partners, on average."

Why do you suppose that is?

On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 10:32:59 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:



As usual spun to make it appear the pledges don't work. Based on other
reports of the same study those who take the pledge are less likely to
have sex until average age of 21 compared to about age 17 for the
average American teen. To Quot CNN:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,475306,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/12/30/virginity.pledges/

I believe the main point of the pledges was to prevent teenage
pregnancy, not stop sexual activity. I believe 21 is about the age of
the first marriage, so those who take the pledge are probably waiting
for their partner of their first marriage.

Poor conclusion.

Your own links provide, "[the]...study also only looked at teens who
were unmarried five years after taking virginity pledges, now ages 20
to 23. "The married are out of the picture, so they're not as
interesting," she said."

When I read a report like this, I have to ask questions about what
"religious teen" means. On the surface, this appears to be a confusion
of spurious variables... and it seems the conclusion of the study is
goofy, at best.

Contrast: "making a virginity pledge doesn't play a role (sic) any
sexual behavior because teenagers who take a pledge are just as likely
to have premarital sex as those who do not promise abstinence. The
study also revealed that those who took virginity pledges where less
likely to use condoms that non-pledgers, she said."

With: Overall, religious students, regardless of whether they take
virginity pledges, are more conservative than their non-religious
peers. When compared against national averages, "they are having sex
an average of about three years later than the average American,"


And getting STDs at the same rate??? (Hmmmm...scratching chin.....)

And you, therefore, have a conclusion from a study that essentially
says, if we pick a certain group of students (we'll call them
"religious" whether they ever went to church or not) that have
predispositions toward certain behavior and they act in that way, we
have proof that "religion" controls sexual behavior.

The "facts" seem to suggest that teenage religion is a clear
contributor towards STDs.....

Huh?

Who paid for this silly study?


Nice analysis, although likely to be ignored.