Sunday, February 04, 2007

3443 Virginity pledges vs. condom use in adolescents

Why do you suppose some groups, the media especially, are so opposed to teens being instructed that abstinence is a viable alternative in sex education? Never mind, just tuck that thought away for another day and move one to things we do know. Studies do show that parents are in favor of abstinence education. What got the most media attention hype was a report [Peter Bearman and Hanna Bruckner in the Journal of Adolescent Health, April 2005] that apparently showed virginity pledges made no statistically significant difference in STDs in young adulthood. Upon rechecking their methods that was found not to be the case because their methods also showed that condom use failed even more in making a difference in STDs among this sample, and they were not looking at the teen years, but 7 years after the fact. A study done in June 2005 showed the Bearman and Bruckner study had many design flaws, plus the media had ignored many of the statistically significant differences, like male pledgers had 30% lower rate of infection than non-pledgers. I only bring it up now because recently I heard this misinformation mentioned on a talk show.


Lower STD rates [25%] is just one among a broad array of positive outcomes associated with virginity pledging. Previous research has shown that, when compared to non-pledgers of similar backgrounds, individuals who have taken a virginity pledge are:

Less likely to have children out-of-wedlock;
Less likely to experience teen pregnancy;
Less likely to give birth as teens or young adults;
Less likely to have sex before age 18; and,
Less likely to engage in non-marital sex as young adults.
In addition, pledgers have far fewer life-time sexual partners than non-pledgers. There are no apparent negatives associated with virginity pledging: while pledgers are less likely to use contraception at initial intercourse, differences in contraceptive use quickly disappear. By young adult years, sexually active pledgers are as likely to use contraception as non-pledgers.



Read it here, "Adolescent Virginity Pledges, Condom Use, and Sexually Transmitted Diseases Among Young Adults" by Robert Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., June, 2005.

Although the groups compared did have similar backgrounds, it appeared to me that more non-pledgers were from divorced homes with higher incomes and less religious involvement than the virginity pledge youth. However, whether the differences were statistically signficant enough to satisfy social scientists, I don't know.

And as we all know from life, making a promise doesn't mean keeping a promise.

Here's a good discussion opener for you and your daughter.

technorati: , , ,

5 comments:

ChupieandJ'smama (Janeen) said...

As always, very thought provoking Norma.

Anonymous said...

Of course I have to comment this, since I think that it's slightly different in Sweden comparing to US.

First, I don't think Virginity pledges even exists over here, not in the same form as in US. It has gone too far amongst our teens to be stopped by now. (I'm just being realistic)

With that in mind, I'm very happy over the fact that we've had extensive condom campaigns during a lot of years - who knows what would have happened otherwise?

There is NO WAY we could instruct our Swedish teens that abstinence is a viable alternative in sex education. It's just too late.

I'm more worried that this will be increased a level, into not using condoms either. We've already seen something about that, unfortunately enough.

Not good at all!!!

Anonymous said...

Not much of a surprise that a conservative think-tank came up with those numbers. Here is something a little more main-stream.

Sexual education needs to be taught from a public health standpoint first and foremost. Very few people have a problem with including information about abstinence (most sex ed programs do) but they do have a problem with abstinence-only education.

Abstinence-only education is not the answer.

Norma said...

If you don't like the data extracted from the longitudinal survey because Heritage analyzed it, check out the stats on your own. The MSM had the opportunity to point out the weaknesses in the original report, but chose not too, only going after their usual "bash the conservatives and anyone with values" approach. But as you say, "not much of a surprise," considering the source.

I took the time to look at that Journal which published the original report, and there was a recent Supplement that was about as close to child sexual voyeurism as I'd seen in a so-called research journal. I thought I'd seen it all in flimsy research grant scams, but there's always a new twist in academe.

Anonymous said...

Back in the '80s I made a pledge to myself to wait until marriage. (Influenced by my mom and dad's premarital abstinence. )

AT 21 I goofed up one time and ended up with an STD that I still have.

HOWEVER,I always went back to the practice of abstinence, even when I was a divorced mom in my 30's. It is about values including valuing yourself.