New Study about Virginity Pledges

[astrid]

A new study in Pediatrics has found that teens who take virginity pledges are just as likely to have sex as teens who don't. However, the study also found that those who pledged virginity but had sex anyway are less likely to use any protection against pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

 

Interesting reading.

 

astrid

[Karenciavo]

Yes, unfortunately pledges of any kind don't seem to mean much to people these day.

[Rich with Kids]

My dd got a cool ring out of it, though. :D

 

I agree that the pledge itself won't keep them from having sex. That's why we talk. A lot.

[Zelda]

This is a great example of how you can play with the numbers to get the desired result. I guess what it proves more than anything is that decisions about morality need to be based on a standard that is something other than the most likely result as "proven" in a study.

[stripe]

I think it shows that "just say no" is not enough, by itself. You have to have something to say "yes" to, and it is a commitment that must regularly be made, not just once. Also, it may be easy to make a virginity pledge when you're 12 or something, but more complicated when you have stronger urges and, for example, a love interest to tempt you; it's no longer theoretical. It is not a good idea to give people the opportunity to be in compromising situations and then count on a pledge alone to keep them "safe." Staying away from those situations is safer.

[Spy Car]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the idea of virginity pledges isn't really to promote abstinence (where it clearly fails) but rather to intentionally reproduce at a local level the kind of "un-original sin" experienced by Adam and Eve in the garden.

 

There-by sexuality gets inextricably bound with disobedience, shame, sin, guilt, etc. Breaking a pledge to parents, God, and self, maximizes the bad feelings (as intended).

 

Virginity pledges work extraordinarily well in this regard, leaving young people feeling sinful and in need of redemption. And being made to feel in need of redemption is the ultimate goal, not the maintenance of "virginity".

 

The fact that lack of sexual education and the pledges themselves often result in risky behaviors is quite besides the point of their true purpose.

 

I bet a study would find these pledges to a pretty good job at making teens think of themselves as sinful and fallen beings.

 

Bill

[dirty ethel rackham]

Interesting thoughs, Bill. Food for though ...

 

But, wouldn't any discussion of sex outside of marriage as a sin lead to that same thinking? Wouldn't any identification of behavior as sinful lead to the same conclusions? Is knowing that one is sinful and fallen necessarily harmful?

 

Hmmm...

[Karenciavo]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the idea of virginity pledges isn't really to promote abstinence (where it clearly fails) but rather to intentionally reproduce at a local level the kind of "un-original sin" experienced by Adam and Eve in the garden.

 

There-by sexuality gets inextricably bound with disobedience, shame, sin, guilt, etc. Breaking a pledge to parents, God, and self, maximizes the bad feelings (as intended).

 

Virginity pledges work extraordinarily well in this regard, leaving young people feeling sinful and in need of redemption. And being made to feel in need of redemption is the ultimate goal, not the maintenance of "virginity".

 

We do not participate in virginity pledges, nor will we, but I have never understood them to mean what you think they mean. Can't imagine where you got that from. :rolleyes:

[Annie N]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the idea of virginity pledges isn't really to promote abstinence (where it clearly fails) but rather to intentionally reproduce at a local level the kind of "un-original sin" experienced by Adam and Eve in the garden.

 

There-by sexuality gets inextricably bound with disobedience, shame, sin, guilt, etc. Breaking a pledge to parents, God, and self, maximizes the bad feelings (as intended).

Are you saying that sexual activity among teens is so likely that someone would design the pledge with the idea not of helping them to avoid sexual activity but with the intention of making them feel even worse when they inevitably did have sex?

 

Virginity pledges work extraordinarily well in this regard, leaving young people feeling sinful and in need of redemption. And being made to feel in need of redemption is the ultimate goal, not the maintenance of "virginity".

How do you know this?

 

The fact that lack of sexual education and the pledges themselves often result in risky behaviors is quite besides the point of their true purpose.

How do you know that the pledges themselves are a cause of risky behavior?

 

I bet a study would find these pledges to a pretty good job at making teens think of themselves as sinful and fallen beings.

 

Bill

I bet a study would find that teens who have been raised to think of themselves as fallen human beings would find that they think of themselves that way, and that those teens who did not have that upbringing but who had made the pledge when they were young and still thought of kissing on the lips as "icky" would not any more than any other teens would.

[Annie N]

I think it shows that "just say no" is not enough, by itself. You have to have something to say "yes" to, and it is a commitment that must regularly be made, not just once. Also, it may be easy to make a virginity pledge when you're 12 or something, but more complicated when you have stronger urges and, for example, a love interest to tempt you; it's no longer theoretical. It is not a good idea to give people the opportunity to be in compromising situations and then count on a pledge alone to keep them "safe." Staying away from those situations is safer.

 

Precisely. Perhaps what the study should lead people to think is that teens need more help in saying no than just a pledge.

[Cricket]

It is not a good idea to give people the opportunity to be in compromising situations and then count on a pledge alone to keep them "safe." Staying away from those situations is safer.

 

:iagree: I also agree with Rich with Kids who said ""That's why we talk. A lot."

[Zelda]

Can't imagine where you got that from. :rolleyes:

 

I can. ;)

[Spy Car]

Interesting thoughs, Bill. Food for though ...

 

But, wouldn't any discussion of sex outside of marriage as a sin lead to that same thinking? Wouldn't any identification of behavior as sinful lead to the same conclusions? Is knowing that one is sinful and fallen necessarily harmful?

 

Hmmm...

 

Last question first.

 

I think for some (including the vast majority of those who have their children take virginity pledges) it is imperative that their children internalize the concept of their sinful and fallen natures, so they understand their need for redemption. So it's a "good thing." And failing to keep the pledge has a purpose.

 

The "good girls and boys" who manage to keep the pledge are in some ways at greater risk because they might be "deluded" into thinking living a virtuous and chaste life is somehow going to lead to their "salvation" when their theology teaches otherwise.

 

To the earlier point, being told something is "sinful" behavior doesn't seem to me to have quite the same impact of "disobedience" as making a sacred pledge with a big ceremony (including items such as rings). These ritualistic vows take on the effect of breaking a holy sacrament and make sexual activity into a betrayal of ones word to self, family and God. Powerful stuff.

 

Bill

Edited December 29, 2008 by Spy Car

[Liberty]

Here's an interesting part of the article:

 

"Previous studies found that pledgers were more likely to delay having sex than non-pledgers," said study author Janet E. Rosenbaum, a post doctoral fellow at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. "I used the same data as previous studies but a different statistical method."

 

This method allowed Rosenbaum to compare those who had taken a virginity pledge with similar teens who hadn't taken a pledge but were likely to delay having sex she said. She added that she didn't include teens who were unlikely to take a pledge."

 

So, this leaves a couple of questions:

1. How did they decide what teens were likely to delay having sex.

2. Did they remove from the pledgee group those teens who--previous to the pledge--would have been considered likely to have sex? (If not, this new "statistical method" is a crock, imo)

[tibbyl]

Personally I find the strong emphasis on virginity to be objectifying to young adults, regardless of gender.

 

The pledges typically are performed in a group setting and, thus, are public in nature, especially when advertised by wearing of certain symbols. It reduces the pledgers' sexuality to perishable commodity.

 

But unlike rotten produce, the young person who falls short of the pledge can reverse the expiration date of their commodity, regaining "purity" through more rituals.

[PrairieAir]

:lurk5:

Hmmm, Spy Car and tibbyl have some very interesting thoughts here. That's all I have to say about that. And I mean that as genuinely interesting and not at all in a snarky way. I'd never thought about it that way. Of course, I've never thought all that much about this issue anyway since we don't do the whole virginity pledge or courtship thing. Just very interesting, y'all!

:lurk5:

[Erica in PA]

Last question first.

 

I think for some (including the vast majority of those who have their children take virginity pledges) it is imperative that their children internalize the concept of their sinful and fallen natures, so they understand their need for redemption. So it's a "good thing." And failing to keep the pledge has a purpose.

 

The "good girls and boys" who manage to keep the pledge are in some ways at greater risk because they might be "deluded" into thinking living a virtuous and chaste life is somehow going to lead to their "salvation" when their theology teaches otherwise.

 

To the earlier point, being told something is "sinful" behavior doesn't seem to me to have quite the same impact of "disobedience" as making a sacred pledge with a big ceremony (including items such as rings). These ritualistic vows take on the effect of breaking a holy sacrament and make sexual activity into a betrayal of ones word to self, family and God. Powerful stuff.

 

Bill

 

I think you're reading way too much into it. Purity rings are a sign by which a person indicates that they intend to wait for sex until marriage. Lots of Christian young people happily and joyfully do this, and experience the lifelong blessings that come from having waited for marriage. I never had a ring, nor do I think they are necessary, but I certainly did believe as a young person that pre-marital sex was outside God's plan, and I am grateful to have reaped the benefits of obeying God's Word in that area. There are lots of other areas where I have not obeyed God's Word, and those who disobey when it comes to premarital sex are no worse than I.

 

The only problem I can see with purity rings is if parents encourage their child to wear one, and it's not coming from that person's own heartfelt desire to obey God. That is not a good thing. But most of the girls I have known who have worn a purity ring do so out of their own conviction, not their parent's.

[stripe]

I wonder about the perceived need for a public virginity pledge. What is the value of making it public?

 

For what it's worth, I am in favor of non-shame-based approach to sexuality including chastity within marriage and "purity" beforehand (for lack of a better term) and devoid of the original sin business, but I don't really "get" public declarations.

[bettyandbob]

I saw a bit of this in the Washington Post today. I think to understand the exact criteria, you need to look at the full research article. However, the article I read said the author used 100 characteristics which made the sets of teens similar. As the author said previous studies had compared apples to oranges -- a comparison of a teen raised by a single parent in an urban setting and no regular religious affiliation to a teen with two parents from a rural area with a strong religious involvement is not really an appropriate comparison. There is not enough space in a newspaper to list the exact characteristics chosen.

 

That said the conclusion does not surprise me and does not seem manipulated. I have noticed some families make s-- a taboo subject. In the families I know that subscribe to these rings that is definitely the case. They make it clear s-- is wrong and no other discussion is made. As a result, teens in these families have less info and know they can't ask questions.

 

Obviously, the sample of families I know who have teens with purity rings is tiny. I don't know everyone and I know other families approach guiding their children differently.

 

I do think a parent can give push premarital abstinence without shutting off all conversation. That is what I try to do. The mistake I see is presenting a hostility toward the subject. That denies that teen has a physically maturing body and a brain that needs to catch up. The brain that needs catching up needs an adult open to providing guidance.

 

I think a good relationship with a parent trumps a purity ring.

[Erica in PA]

Precisely. Perhaps what the study should lead people to think is that teens need more help in saying no than just a pledge.

 

Exactly! :iagree:

[Rich with Kids]

I was happy that my dd asked for a ring. We didn't sign any pledges or do anything public. She just wanted the ring. I view it the same way I view my cross ring. To me it's a reminder of my relationship with Christ. I don't worship it or anything and it darn sure doesn't keep me from sinning, just like her ring won't keep her from having sex.

[Zelda]

The children that are subjected to constant references to adult sexuality in the media are the ones that really need to be the object of our concern. It is no better to be pushed into sexual expression than it is to be told that sex is wrong (though I have yet to meet a single person who is teaching their child this).

[Spy Car]

The children that are subjected to constant references to adult sexuality in the media are the ones that really need to be the object of our concern.

 

You might be surprised to know I agree 100%.

 

The steady diet of sexually suggestive material now commonly found in television, film and print, including programs ostensibly aimed at children and "families" is appalling to me.

 

Bill

[bettyandbob]

There was actually another study recently that showed a cleared relationship between exposure to media with sexual content. More exposure, the higher chance a teen will have sex. Sorry, I don't remember the publisher of this study.

[Jenny in Atl]

But then why has sexual activity always occurred in young teens, even before the so-called on set of over-sexed media? Though out history kids have had sex at a young age. Yes, most times they were married off, to one not of their choosing. But still, where do we get the idea that kids will not wish to explore their sexuality if there were no sexual images in the "outside" world?

And do boys get rings too or something else?

 

Just wondering...

[bettyandbob]

I think there's plenty of sex in shows which young teens watch. (Not my young teen). When I was a kid I watched with my parents. My children do the same. If parents aren't watching with their kids, the kids are probably watching a lot of stuff you wouldn't be expecting a kid to watch. Why does an acquaintance my dd who attend public school have a boyfriend in fifth grade. Why when I listen in to the girls at ballet and scout is having a boyfriend at 10, 11, 12 seem important? And why do some of the moms dismiss this as "cute"? If general society and media push "dating" to such a young age, the girls are going to be looking for input on how to get boyfriends and what to do with them and a major influence is a tv with cable, but you don't even need to see cable to see some crap. Gossip Girl is supposed to be about high school aged kids. What better place for a 12 or 13 year old to watch and learn.

[lionfamily1999]

It's interesting how a community's expectations can effect the actions of its members. FI, I would guess that kids in church schools (not private schools, but the smaller, church run schools) can stick to their 'promise' up until they go off to 'the real world' and college. There, the expectations change. People expect college kids to do stupid/dangerous/wasteful/etc things. As they do in public school, as they do in private school.

 

My husband and I have discussed this, our stance on our dc's impending private lives. I talk to my daughter, often, very very very often. I talk to her from experience. I talk with her honestly. I beg her to be ever mindful of situation. As for my sons, I have to say I'm horribly uncomfortable discussing it. Why? Because I admit that hearing about adult men that are virgins creeps me out a bit. I don't know that I want my boys to wait, if only because of the stigma that is attached to it.

 

In the end, rather than saying do or don't, I think including sex into all of the adult things children are tempted to try is a better approach. Why place a higher signifigance on sex than drugs?

[Laura K (NC)]

My dh and I talk to our sons about their inherent worth and the worth of the girls they are attracted to. They aren't cheap pieces of meat, and the sexual act is more than just a physical coupling, like dogs. This is a 180-degree difference from your assessment, that abstinence vows pile on guilt and feelings of worthlessness. Original sin has little to do with it. The dignity of the human person, however, has everything to do with it.

 

Sex education, when it turns into sex promotion, exploitation, and inevitability, does no teen any favors. Since the rumors I hear about sex education actively promote a promiscuous livestyle, I'm just not interested in the mainstream idea of sex ed. True sex ed. involves the idea that sex is for procreation and for love, though. If kids get some feeling of shame for divorcing sex from procreation and love, then that's not a bad thing. Kids should experience some sense of shame when they do something objectively wrong. Consciences are there for a reason, though media and government programs do their dead level best to silence that little voice that tells us the difference between right and wrong.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the idea of virginity pledges isn't really to promote abstinence (where it clearly fails) but rather to intentionally reproduce at a local level the kind of "un-original sin" experienced by Adam and Eve in the garden.

 

There-by sexuality gets inextricably bound with disobedience, shame, sin, guilt, etc. Breaking a pledge to parents, God, and self, maximizes the bad feelings (as intended).

 

Virginity pledges work extraordinarily well in this regard, leaving young people feeling sinful and in need of redemption. And being made to feel in need of redemption is the ultimate goal, not the maintenance of "virginity".

 

The fact that lack of sexual education and the pledges themselves often result in risky behaviors is quite besides the point of their true purpose.

 

I bet a study would find these pledges to a pretty good job at making teens think of themselves as sinful and fallen beings.

 

Bill

[lionfamily1999]

I think there's plenty of sex in shows which young teens watch. (Not my young teen). When I was a kid I watched with my parents. My children do the same. If parents aren't watching with their kids, the kids are probably watching a lot of stuff you wouldn't be expecting a kid to watch. Why does an acquaintance my dd who attend public school have a boyfriend in fifth grade. Why when I listen in to the girls at ballet and scout is having a boyfriend at 10, 11, 12 seem important? And why do some of the moms dismiss this as "cute"? If general society and media push "dating" to such a young age, the girls are going to be looking for input on how to get boyfriends and what to do with them and a major influence is a tv with cable, but you don't even need to see cable to see some crap. Gossip Girl is supposed to be about high school aged kids. What better place for a 12 or 13 year old to watch and learn.

The lineup for the Nickelodian channels is horrifying. Degrassy and a ton of other shows actually have TEENS having sex, or at least discussing it.

[Zelda]

But then why has sexual activity always occurred in young teens, even before the so-called on set of over-sexed media? Though out history kids have had sex at a young age. Yes, most times they were married off, to one not of their choosing. But still, where do we get the idea that kids will not wish to explore their sexuality if there were no sexual images in the "outside" world?

And do boys get rings too or something else?

 

Just wondering...

 

I've never heard anyone assert that they would not wish to. I would just prefer them to not get the messages about sex that the media pushes. Their interpretations of what is desirable and healthy don't mesh with mine.

[lionfamily1999]

I've never heard anyone assert that they would not wish to. I would just prefer them to not get the messages about sex that the media pushes. Their interpretations of what is desirable and healthy don't mesh with mine.

:iagree:

[Zelda]

The lineup for the Nickelodian channels is horrifying. Degrassy and a ton of other shows actually have TEENS having sex, or at least discussing it.

 

Having it in very casual, adult ways too. And yet we expect so little of them in terms of being productive. They can have casual sex but still need mom to do their laundry? Go to job interviews with them? We infantilize them when it comes to responsibility and then rush their maturation when it comes to recreation.

[Spy Car]

But then why has sexual activity always occurred in young teens, even before the so-called on set of over-sexed media? Though out history kids have had sex at a young age. Yes, most times they were married off, to one not of their choosing. But still, where do we get the idea that kids will not wish to explore their sexuality if there were no sexual images in the "outside" world?

And do boys get rings too or something else?

 

Just wondering...

 

Personally, I don't think teenagers would lack the desire to explore their sexuality absent pervasive sexual content in the media.

 

The desire for sex is an innate desire, and as such it isn't one that needs to be fanned by suggestive content and isn't one likely to be repressed by measures such as virginity pledges.

 

That doesn't mean there are no valid reasons in our modern cultural context not to teach our children to delay sexual experience, outside of guilt and shame.

 

There is a middle ground that involves establishing a child's self-respect and feelings of self-worth with open and honest communication between parent and child. The current media obsession with sexuality I believe is destructive to finding that middle path, where human sexuality is a gift and not a destructive curse.

 

Such a course requires maturity on the part of both parent and child, and both highly-sexualized media and things like virginity pledges are destructive to this end. At least that's my feeling.

 

Bill

[Zelda]

Personally, I don't think teenagers would lack the desire to explore their sexuality absent pervasive sexual content in the media.

 

The desire for sex is an innate desire, and as such it isn't one that needs to be fanned by suggestive content and isn't one likely to be repressed by measures such as virginity pledges.

 

That doesn't mean there are no valid reasons in our modern cultural context not to teach our children to delay sexual experience, outside of guilt and shame.

 

There is a middle ground that involves establishing a child's self-respect and feelings of self-worth with open and honest communication between parent and child. The current media obsession with sexuality I believe is destructive to finding that middle path, where human sexuality is a gift and not a destructive curse.

 

Such a course requires maturity on the part of both parent and child, and both highly-sexualized media and things like virginity pledges are destructive to this end. At least that's my feeling.

 

Bill

 

I will in turn surprise you by agreeing with almost everything you say here. I do not agree that the virginity pledge has to be a shaming experience. Its my experience that these families are actually very open about human sexuality and its benefits but prefer that their children delay sex until marriage. Often the pledge is private.

[Audrey]

But most of the girls I have known who have worn a purity ring do so out of their own conviction, not their parent's.

 

 

Conviction to what, though? To obey a doctrine? Or to "get a cool ring out of it," as another poster claimed her daughter got?

 

Most of the girls I have known (purity ring or not) will "go along to get along." That can take you to extremes on either end of the scale, unfortunately.

 

Personally, I just wish girls weren't objectified. Period.

[Spy Car]

My dh and I talk to our sons about their inherent worth and the worth of the girls they are attracted to. They aren't cheap pieces of meat, and the sexual act is more than just a physical coupling, like dogs. This is a 180-degree difference from your assessment, that abstinence vows pile on guilt and feelings of worthlessness. Original sin has little to do with it. The dignity of the human person, however, has everything to do with it.

 

I'm with you 100% on the need to teach our children to value their inherent self-worth and the inherent self-worth of others. So we'd have no difference in not wanting our children to treat others as "cheap pieces of meat."

 

But we must recognize there are situations beyond the dichotomy of abstinence and raw carnality. It is possible for young people to "fall in love."

 

We might (or might not) approve. It might (or might not) be the mature sort of relationship we'd hope they would hold out for, but it could be a far-cry from dog-like and degrading relations. It's possible for young people to have genuine feelings of affection (and even love) for one another and still want to have sex.

 

So then what do we do? Try to bind the children with oaths they can't keep? Fail to teach them how to avoid creating life they are not yet in a position to nurture?

 

Like you I wouldn't like to see "sex education" turned into "sex promotion". I don't believe that's what it is, but if I'm wrong I'd be with you being against it.

 

There's no question in my mind that the standards of content available to children have sunk far too low, and it is shameful. I think it is shameful, and wrong.

 

Bill

[cathmom]

We infantilize them when it comes to responsibility and then rush their maturation when it comes to recreation.

 

Great sentence!

[hornblower]

Because I admit that hearing about adult men that are virgins creeps me out a bit. I don't know that I want my boys to wait, if only because of the stigma that is attached to it.

 

:svengo:

 

I find this a shocking double standard.

 

And just WHOM are your boys supposed to have sex with?

[hornblower]

A private pledge made by a teen in their own heart is one thing.

 

The public ones of daughters making pledges to their fathers, I find disturbing on many levels.

[beansprouts]

One thing I want my children to understand is that sex is a biological process with a purpose. If they are to engage in sex, they need to understand and be prepared for its natural consequences. I find it absurd that people have sex, then are "surprised" by the "unintended result". :rolleyes:

 

Aside from this, I intend to pass on my faith, and hope it gives them a place to stand when met with temptation.

[jamnkats]

:svengo:

 

I find this a shocking double standard.

 

And just WHOM are your boys supposed to have sex with?

 

the bad girls, of course.

[LaMere Academy]

It is possible for young people to "fall in love."

 

We might (or might not) approve. It might (or might not) be the mature sort of relationship we'd hope they would hold out for, but it could be a far-cry from dog-like and degrading relations. It's possible for young people to have genuine feelings of affection (and even love) for one another and still want to have sex.

 

 

Bill

 

I agree with the above and think it's very hard on young people who have these feelings for one another along with the raging hormones.

[LaMere Academy]

the bad girls, of course.

 

Right. Not MY daughters. ;)

Or yours either, I'm sure.

[Spy Car]

One thing I want my children to understand is that sex is a biological process with a purpose. If they are to engage in sex, they need to understand and be prepared for its natural consequences. I find it absurd that people have sex, then are "surprised" by the "unintended result". :rolleyes:

 

Aside from this, I intend to pass on my faith, and hope it gives them a place to stand when met with temptation.

 

If they understand the potential natural consequences does this mean they will also have information and access to prophylactic measures that could reduce the chances of unintended pregnancy or contraction of STDs?

 

Or will they just have to play the odds?

 

Bill

[Zelda]

If they understand the potential natural consequences does this mean they will also have information and access to prophylactic measures that could reduce the chances of unintended pregnancy or contraction of STDs?

 

Or will they just have to play the odds?

 

Bill

 

Given that no system but abstinence is fool proof they are playing the odds either way.

[Moxie]

Because I admit that hearing about adult men that are virgins creeps me out a bit. I don't know that I want my boys to wait, if only because of the stigma that is attached to it.

 

 

 

You would rather your teen son have sex and possibly become a teen parent so he won't be stigmatized?!?

[Zelda]

You would rather your teen son have sex and possibly become a teen parent so he won't be stigmatized?!?

 

I believe the exact same pressure is now applicable to girls who delay sex. They are prudes or cold or unpopular.

[Spy Car]

Given that no system but abstinence is fool proof they are playing the odds either way.

 

That's why I used terms such as "reduce" the chances as opposed to eliminate the chances.

 

But there are long-odds and short odds (and frankly I'm not sure which is which :D) but I'd rather see a young person I cared for have every odd stacked in his or her favor if they do choose to be sexually active, rather than leaving them to natural chance. That's just me.

 

Bill

[sunshine]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the idea of virginity pledges isn't really to promote abstinence (where it clearly fails) but rather to intentionally reproduce at a local level the kind of "un-original sin" experienced by Adam and Eve in the garden.

 

There-by sexuality gets inextricably bound with disobedience, shame, sin, guilt, etc. Breaking a pledge to parents, God, and self, maximizes the bad feelings (as intended).

 

Virginity pledges work extraordinarily well in this regard, leaving young people feeling sinful and in need of redemption. And being made to feel in need of redemption is the ultimate goal, not the maintenance of "virginity".

 

The fact that lack of sexual education and the pledges themselves often result in risky behaviors is quite besides the point of their true purpose.

 

I bet a study would find these pledges to a pretty good job at making teens think of themselves as sinful and fallen beings.

 

Bill

 

 

I do not know what virginity pledges promote when done in an emotionally packed room full of uplifting music and people all doing it at one time. Sounds like mob mentality to me and as all mobs temporary. What I do know is from personal experience.

 

100% of the children age 14 to 28 that I have had experience with (number around 25) that practice Courtship, have had parents that started teaching courtship to their children (I started with my almost 18 yr old at age 12) are still virgins unless married. They have dated none. But have courted an average of 2 people before marriage. Now these people practice True courtship. I will not go into detail here in this thread but you can PM me if you are interested. These kids are ones I know personally but there are others out there in the thousands where the statistics are just as high. But it is a skewed number like the statistics quoted in this thread because I eliminated the parents who didn't come up beside their kids and lovingly teach the basis for courtship, the reason behind it and the advantages for the child. Not just to save the hymen for marriage but to save the heart and mind as well. The goal became the child's not the parents and that was part of the secret of the success and the other most important part was the parents stayed beside them, lifted them up, encouraged them and constantly reminded them of the prize. A life with someone who was on the same page with them, someone who valued the same things, had similar goals and beliefs. What enviable marriages I have witnessed. And they know they are fallen and sinful beings who are redeemed and not condemned. In complete control of their passions and weaknesses, not slaves to them.

 

But the other side is is that 100% of the kids whose parents expected them to have sex before marriage were not disappointed. Not once. And even with all the "information they were given, about 70% of them got pregnant.

Edited December 29, 2008 by sunshine

[beansprouts]

Given that no system but abstinence is fool proof they are playing the odds either way.

 

 

What she said. I believe we mislead our children when we teach them that they can reliably cheat the system.

 

...and it always surprises me when I have to argue with evolutionists over the successful nature of sex for proliferating our species... despite our best efforts ;)