New Study about Virginity Pledges

[Jill- OK]

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

 

*Or* will they just have to play the odds.

 

That's what I think she was pointing out...it's not an 'either/or' statement, lol...they're playing the odds if they engage and rely on protective measures, just as they're playing the odds if they engage without any measures.

 

I think you meant (or should have said), "Or will they worsen their odds...", yes?

[6packofun]

And this is just one reason why our kids aren't being pounded in the head with desperate refrains of "Wait! Don't have SEX!!!" but are also hearing: "Have self-control. Here is why it's BETTER if you wait..., Here's how to resist temptations of ALL kinds...and Don't give a crap about what anyone else is doing or saying. Seriously, are you going to get sex advice from another 15 year old? Or a 12 year old, for crying out loud? You are much smarter than that."

 

It's a whole, lifelong conversation about using your d*mn head and knowing that feelings pass and are not to be trusted alone for such life-changing decisions. My kids truly think that anyone who is SMART isn't casually dating and having sex. Good. Do I think they are infallible? Nope. But if this foundation is there it will go better for them than if I only pitch them the Bible verses or "because God says so." (Which are true and important to us, btw.)

[Jenny in Atl]

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

 

Really? I have always heard and still do that the girls who "put out" are cheap, easy, used up, just 2nd hand goods... etc.

 

Still never hear bad things about the boys.. they skate away free (hopefully w/o STDs). It's expected of them of course.

[Spy Car]

*Or* will they just have to play the odds.

 

That's what I think she was pointing out...it's not an 'either/or' statement, lol...they're playing the odds if they engage and rely on protective measures, just as they're playing the odds if they engage without any measures.

 

I think you meant (or should have said), "Or will they worsen their odds...", yes?

 

What I said was access to prophylactic measures could reduce the chances of unintended pregnancies or contracting of STDs as opposed to "unprotected" sex. Hardly a controversial statement. And the odds are drastically better with condom usage than without. Again, not controversial.

 

Bill

[dirty ethel rackham]

And this is just one reason why our kids aren't being pounded in the head with desperate refrains of "Wait! Don't have SEX!!!" but are also hearing: "Have self-control. Here is why it's BETTER if you wait..., Here's how to resist temptations of ALL kinds...and Don't give a crap about what anyone else is doing or saying. Seriously, are you going to get sex advice from another 15 year old? Or a 12 year old, for crying out loud? You are much smarter than that."

 

It's a whole, lifelong conversation about using your d*mn head and knowing that feelings pass and are not to be trusted alone for such life-changing decisions. My kids truly think that anyone who is SMART isn't casually dating and having sex. Good. Do I think they are infallible? Nope. But if this foundation is there it will go better for them than if I only pitch them the Bible verses or "because God says so." (Which are true and important to us, btw.)

 

I love your practical advice for helping teens overcome temptation. While I do want to stress that God does not want us to abuse the gift of sexuality by having sex outside of marriage, I do want to give them practical tools for self-control. I also believe that we can help them avoid situations where temptation would be greater.

 

To address a previous poster, my concern with the oversexualized media is that it normalizes casual sex - that there is something wrong if you are NOT doing it. That is my issue with many sex ed programs as well. Yes, the urges have been there all along. However, I think we do our children a disservice if we do not teach them that self-control CAN be exercised ... that they can be successful in controling their urges. Both dh and I were in our twenties before we were sexually active. And I don't consider myself to have a tremendous amount of self control (if I did, I would still be a size 6 :)) That said, however, I do not plan to rely on abstinence-only sex-education, but abstinence is BEST sex-education. What is taught in schools around here in white-bread suburbia today is that abstinence is abnormal so here is how to avoid pregnancy.

 

I hope Pam of the "Flaming Sword of Moderation" will chime in here with her "no foolin' around until you both have a credit score" opinion. That is priceless!!

[Spy Car]

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 ;)

 

Taking steps to prevent unwanted pregnancy or being exposed to STDs are "cheating the system"? Really???

 

You don't need to argue with me about sex being the mechanism for reproducing the species, or how likely "unprotected" sex is to lead to pregnancy. It's precisely because of this (and the chances of illness) that protective measures to prevent these things aren't a bad idea if kids are active. No?

 

Bill

[hornblower]

Really? I have always heard and still do that the girls who "put out" are cheap, easy, used up, just 2nd hand goods... etc.

 

Still never hear bad things about the boys.. they skate away free (hopefully w/o STDs). It's expected of them of course.

 

Nah, it's expected of girls these days. It was in the news a fair bit in Canada last year as one of our baseball players was going to be something big in the pro's, and instead got nabbed for statutory rape.

 

This is a link to a Globe & Mail newspaper story which has been reposted on a diff. website. This has explicit details of what young girls are reporting as 'normal' in their schools, not just in disadvantaged areas but in privileged neighbourhoods. I think you had a similar thing in the US with some hockey players in Boston?

 

http://www.thefreeradical.ca/Stolen_childhood1.htm

 

I gather that the emphasis on acts which preserve the hymen is quite prevalent - 'cause that's not 'real'.

[Laurie]

 

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).

 

 

 

I don't know anything about these pledge ceremonies, and I've only heard about the purity rings here at this board.

 

I do think there's a lot to be said for "shame"...and my personal opinion is that our society would be better off if more people felt shame for their transgressions/sins/mistakes or whatever you want to call it. But with loose standards of behavior there's very little left to feel shameful about.

[Zelda]

Well, I do not intend to make prophylactics available to my children. Meaning, they will not get them from me.

[Zelda]

Nah, it's expected of girls these days.

 

I would add that its expected by their peer group. There is no pressure to be "nice" anymore.

[beansprouts]

I would add that its expected by their peer group. There is no pressure to be "nice" anymore.

 

 

And that "herd mentality" is one of the big problems with institutional schooling. When my daughter first watch "High School Musical" she just didn't get it why these kids were so uncomfortable expressing their interests. As homeschoolers, our kids are much freeer to be themselves, and follow their convictions without pressure from others.

[Retired]

I have boys so the whole purity ball thing wouldn't be their style

 

We encourage abstinence. I also let my boys know that in God's perfect plan for us, we should wait for our future spouse.

 

I also tell them that we are all sinners and if they choose to have sex before marriage that God will forgive. That we are all sinners and have failings.

 

My oldest knows what a condom is and were to get it if in the future he chooses to go against our advise.

 

My dh and I have been open to the hurts and problems that premarital sex can cause. That having your heart broken over and over again. The self esteem issue when someone dumbs you. The whole roller coaster of the date/sex scene.

 

He has chosen to post pone dating until college age. I am glad he made the choice.

 

I see a lot of parents not giving there children the tools to make decisions for themselves. My 15 yo has talked to me about his struggles and exercising self control. He prays for self control and pure thoughts. He really want a pure heart and pure body for his future wife.

 

These are the conversation all parents should be open to having with their teens.

 

I know some parents view well there just gonna do it anyway give them a condom. I believe that teach them about self control and consequences and give them tools to extract from tempting situations.

 

I also let him know his convictions are easier to follow being home schooled that he would have much more peer pressure and girls openly making themselves available. He needs to mentally decide how he will handle these situations when he leaves for that first job or college classes.

 

The point is they will have to make their own decision.

 

In my perfect world he will wait for marriage. I do let him know what ever he decides we love him and will be there for him.

[beansprouts]

My dh and I have been open to the hurts and problems that premarital sex can cause. That having your heart broken over and over again. The self esteem issue when someone dumbs you. The whole roller coaster of the date/sex scene.

 

 

I like everything else you said also.

 

DH and I both pray that our children will go into their marriages and be able to unite completely with their spouses (that is with their whole heart, soul, and mind as well as their bodies) without having to overcome the scars and baggage that we have.

[mommaduck]

Not reading the entire thread. We teach abstinance. We also teach that TEA within a proper context is very enjoyable and healthy. We won't be doing any purity pledges or virginity balls. We also will, at age/circumstance appropriateness, be having regular discussions about TEA and all the other stuff that play into it.

Edited December 30, 2008 by mommaduck

[Plaid Dad]

There-by sexuality gets inextricably bound with disobedience, shame, sin, guilt, etc.

 

Purity pledges are based on the belief that sexual activity should be inextricably bound with marriage. If a person believes that and then has sex outside of marriage, their sense of guilt is the natural consequence of the dissonance between their beliefs and their behavior. In other words, their conscience is doing its job.

[Zelda]

.

[beansprouts]

.

 

 

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showpost.php?p=710692&postcount=61

 

:lol:

[Robin Hood]

I copied and pasted a blog I read this morning that is somewhat related to this topic, although it is more about premarital pregnancy, but that comes from premarital sex, so it's somewhat connected. A lot of parents go through the act of something like giving a ring as though that is the answer, then go their way. There needs to be more guidance than that. I would wonder if a different set of people were interviewed, if the results would be different. I also think a little bit of guilt is not a bad thing when pledgers fall.

 

I think the study is designed to target parents so they feel inappropriate guilt for thinking it could be done. It can be done. Not everybody succeeds, but it is possible, pledge or no pledge. Is is possible that those who fail make studies like this to skew perceptions and relieve their own failure? To perhaps bring those who try, down to their level?

 

When someone falls, they should be encouraged to get back in the game, and guilt helps with this. Guilt is not bad.

 

 

I don't think eliminating tv and movie content will prevent young people from partaking in sex prior to marriage, but it's something to consider.

 

If you read, be warned: It's full of Christian thought.

 

 

Warning: There is Salmonella in Your TV!

Posted on November 10, 2008

Filed Under Philosophy/Ethics |

 

I will set before my eyes no vile thing. Psalm 101:3

 

What do all of these have in common: anchovies, orange juice, puffed wheat, alfalfa sprouts, cantaloupe, jalapeño peppers, pork cracklings, baby spinach, chicken breasts, ground beef, fruit trays and Veggie Booty Snack Food? Sometime during the last two years, their producers have issued recalls due to contamination with salmonella bacteria. People who consumed these products were at health risk. But this is only the list of salmonella recalls.

 

Tons of products have been recalled due to contamination by tiny organisms like E. Coli, Melamine, and Listeria. Many more have been recalled simply because the product contains undeclared ingredients like eggs, sulfites, hazel nuts, peanuts, milk products, or wheat. Since I am an avid tomato soup consumer, the recent recall on October 31 interested me. It came from General Mills, who issued a voluntary recall on a single day’s production of its Progresso Hearty Tomato soup. Why? Because the label didn’t list egg, milk and soy, which could produce allergy symptoms in its customers.

 

There are thousands of other recalls that are underway: necklaces containing lead that could be ingested by children; lithium batteries that might overheat; wooden toys with small parts that could break off and pose a choking hazard for small children; a treadmill that could speed up unexpectantly; etc. The list goes on and on: trailer axles; computer docking stations, boat tops, motorcycles, trucks, cars, tires, child safety seats…and, I kid you not, a pacemaker. That’s not easy to recall if it has been installed.

 

I am actually thankful for all of this. Although I don’t have a pacemaker and don’t consume jalapeño peppers, pork cracklings or Veggie Booty Snack Food, I would like to know that my puffed wheat is safe to eat and when I sit down to enjoy a hearty bowl of tomato soup, I would like to know that there isn’t something strange lurking in the hidden depths of my bowl. This is especially true with my morning oatmeal, when those kinds of thoughts could drive you crazy (oatmeal has a million things in it that look suspicious).

 

Sometimes I have felt that we have gone overboard with these recalls, but in the end, I suppose I would vote for being overly cautious than too cavalier.

 

However, this quick trigger to pull product doesn’t seem to be a part of the entertainment industry. I have heard many entertainment “stars†passionately get involved in social issues and cry for banning products that endanger health, like cigarettes. But when it comes to pulling their own products, there is nothing but silence.

 

Last week, a most interesting article appeared. Maybe you read it. Here is the opening paragraph:

 

“Groundbreaking research suggests that pregnancy rates are much higher among teens who watch a lot of TV with sexual dialogue and behavior than among those who have tamer viewing tastes.â€

 

Duh!

 

Groundbreaking? That’s like saying groundbreaking research shows that people who eat chicken with Salmonella are prone to get sicker than those who eat bacteria-free chicken.

 

I remember years ago being floored by a government sponsored study to determine why children fall off of bicycles and tricycles. The heavily funded research found that they fall off because they lose their balance or run into something.

 

Amazing!

 

So, now we have a well-done Rand Corporation study that shows a strong link between behavior and what we watch on TV. This shouldn’t shock us. Advertisers pay millions of dollars hoping that their 30-second “spots†will change our behavior.

 

The Rand study found that “teens who watched the raciest shows were twice as likely to become pregnant†as those who watched few such programs. The study involved 1,792 teens and their viewing habits of 20 TV shows that contained lots of sexual content, such as “Sex and the Cityâ€, “That 70’s Showâ€, and “Friendsâ€.

 

Now, it seems to me that there should have been an immediate voluntary “recall†by all of the producers of the 20 TV shows: HBO, FOX, NBC, CBS, ABC, MTV, etc. The headlines should have read: “MTV Recalls MTVâ€, or “NBC Recalls ‘Friends’â€. The column should have then detailed how these producers were recalling their products with an apology and warning like this: “HBO is recalling all versions of “Sex and the Cityâ€, including all DVD sales and issues a warning that these episodes have been strongly linked to teenage sexual activity and possible pregnancy. We wish to apologize to the American public and pledge to insure further TV productions will be screened carefully to prevent this kind of contamination from being released into the public airways. Please be assured that HBO is committed to producing a healthy product and regrets this failure.â€

 

Well, that’s what we should have heard. However, selling chicken that might make someone sick for a few days obviously is much more serious than leading our kids into promiscuous sex, pregnancy and, no doubt, abortion.

 

We hold one accountable and turn a blind eye to the other.

 

Someone out there should care about this stuff.

 

P.S. Parents, since “recalls†of unhealthy TV programs will probably not happen anytime soon, you will have to take the role of protecting your teens. Don’t forget to look for contamination in movies, music, teen magazines and, yes, even video games. Guard yourself as well. Set no vile thing before your eyes or the eyes of your children.

[Deb in NZ]

with 2 teens in the house, we try to keep commucation lines open on all adult info. When our dc turn 13 we expect them to begin to take on adult reponsibilities. Adult privileges come much later & dc aren't encouraged to accept those privileges before they are ready for the possible consequences that accompany them. A simple set of rules we expect our teens to follow is DADS rule (what NZ Venturer Scouts follow)

 

• No Drugs
  
• No Alcohol
  
• No Discrimination
  
• No Sex
  

 

Many of the venturers in dd's group have boy/girlfriends, but that type of relationship is to be kept outside of Venturers. Please don't be fooled into thinking that because the main socializing your teen does is in church-type groups, that s/he will be 'safe' from the pressures found in other teen groups. My biggest exposure to sex, drugs, & alcohol as a teen was IN youth group.

 

JMHO,

[Zelda]

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showpost.php?p=710692&postcount=61

 

:lol:

 

:lol:

 

Busted.

[Zelda]

Purity pledges are based on the belief that sexual activity should be inextricably bound with marriage. If a person believes that and then has sex outside of marriage, their sense of guilt is the natural consequence of the dissonance between their beliefs and their behavior. In other words, their conscience is doing its job.

 

Well said.

 

In a world that tries to avoid making anyone feel bad about anything a conscience isn't seen as a positive thing anymore . Too bad.

[Heather in Neverland]

Purity pledges are based on the belief that sexual activity should be inextricably bound with marriage. If a person believes that and then has sex outside of marriage, their sense of guilt is the natural consequence of the dissonance between their beliefs and their behavior. In other words, their conscience is doing its job.

 

:iagree:

[Heather in Neverland]

i copied and pasted a blog i read this morning that is somewhat related to this topic, although it is more about premarital pregnancy, but that comes from premarital sex, so it's somewhat connected. A lot of parents go through the act of something like giving a ring as though that is the answer, then go their way. There needs to be more guidance than that. I would wonder if a different set of people were interviewed, if the results would be different. I also think a little bit of guilt is not a bad thing when pledgers fall.

 

I think the study is designed to target parents so they feel inappropriate guilt for thinking it could be done. It can be done. Not everybody succeeds, but it is possible, pledge or no pledge. Is is possible that those who fail make studies like this to skew perceptions and relieve their own failure? To perhaps bring those who try, down to their level?

 

When someone falls, they should be encouraged to get back in the game, and guilt helps with this. Guilt is not bad.

 

 

I don't think eliminating tv and movie content will prevent young people from partaking in sex prior to marriage, but it's something to consider.

 

If you read, be warned: It's full of christian thought.

 

 

warning: There is salmonella in your tv!

Posted on november 10, 2008

filed under philosophy/ethics |

 

i will set before my eyes no vile thing. Psalm 101:3

 

what do all of these have in common: Anchovies, orange juice, puffed wheat, alfalfa sprouts, cantaloupe, jalapeño peppers, pork cracklings, baby spinach, chicken breasts, ground beef, fruit trays and veggie booty snack food? Sometime during the last two years, their producers have issued recalls due to contamination with salmonella bacteria. People who consumed these products were at health risk. But this is only the list of salmonella recalls.

 

Tons of products have been recalled due to contamination by tiny organisms like e. Coli, melamine, and listeria. Many more have been recalled simply because the product contains undeclared ingredients like eggs, sulfites, hazel nuts, peanuts, milk products, or wheat. Since i am an avid tomato soup consumer, the recent recall on october 31 interested me. It came from general mills, who issued a voluntary recall on a single day’s production of its progresso hearty tomato soup. Why? Because the label didn’t list egg, milk and soy, which could produce allergy symptoms in its customers.

 

There are thousands of other recalls that are underway: Necklaces containing lead that could be ingested by children; lithium batteries that might overheat; wooden toys with small parts that could break off and pose a choking hazard for small children; a treadmill that could speed up unexpectantly; etc. The list goes on and on: Trailer axles; computer docking stations, boat tops, motorcycles, trucks, cars, tires, child safety seats…and, i kid you not, a pacemaker. That’s not easy to recall if it has been installed.

 

I am actually thankful for all of this. Although i don’t have a pacemaker and don’t consume jalapeño peppers, pork cracklings or veggie booty snack food, i would like to know that my puffed wheat is safe to eat and when i sit down to enjoy a hearty bowl of tomato soup, i would like to know that there isn’t something strange lurking in the hidden depths of my bowl. This is especially true with my morning oatmeal, when those kinds of thoughts could drive you crazy (oatmeal has a million things in it that look suspicious).

 

Sometimes i have felt that we have gone overboard with these recalls, but in the end, i suppose i would vote for being overly cautious than too cavalier.

 

However, this quick trigger to pull product doesn’t seem to be a part of the entertainment industry. I have heard many entertainment “stars†passionately get involved in social issues and cry for banning products that endanger health, like cigarettes. But when it comes to pulling their own products, there is nothing but silence.

 

Last week, a most interesting article appeared. Maybe you read it. Here is the opening paragraph:

 

“groundbreaking research suggests that pregnancy rates are much higher among teens who watch a lot of tv with sexual dialogue and behavior than among those who have tamer viewing tastes.â€

 

duh!

 

Groundbreaking? That’s like saying groundbreaking research shows that people who eat chicken with salmonella are prone to get sicker than those who eat bacteria-free chicken.

 

I remember years ago being floored by a government sponsored study to determine why children fall off of bicycles and tricycles. The heavily funded research found that they fall off because they lose their balance or run into something.

 

Amazing!

 

So, now we have a well-done rand corporation study that shows a strong link between behavior and what we watch on tv. This shouldn’t shock us. Advertisers pay millions of dollars hoping that their 30-second “spots†will change our behavior.

 

The rand study found that “teens who watched the raciest shows were twice as likely to become pregnant†as those who watched few such programs. The study involved 1,792 teens and their viewing habits of 20 tv shows that contained lots of sexual content, such as “sex and the cityâ€, “that 70’s showâ€, and “friendsâ€.

 

Now, it seems to me that there should have been an immediate voluntary “recall†by all of the producers of the 20 tv shows: Hbo, fox, nbc, cbs, abc, mtv, etc. The headlines should have read: “mtv recalls mtvâ€, or “nbc recalls ‘friends’â€. The column should have then detailed how these producers were recalling their products with an apology and warning like this: “hbo is recalling all versions of “sex and the cityâ€, including all dvd sales and issues a warning that these episodes have been strongly linked to teenage sexual activity and possible pregnancy. We wish to apologize to the american public and pledge to insure further tv productions will be screened carefully to prevent this kind of contamination from being released into the public airways. Please be assured that hbo is committed to producing a healthy product and regrets this failure.â€

 

well, that’s what we should have heard. However, selling chicken that might make someone sick for a few days obviously is much more serious than leading our kids into promiscuous sex, pregnancy and, no doubt, abortion.

 

We hold one accountable and turn a blind eye to the other.

 

Someone out there should care about this stuff.

 

P.s. Parents, since “recalls†of unhealthy tv programs will probably not happen anytime soon, you will have to take the role of protecting your teens. Don’t forget to look for contamination in movies, music, teen magazines and, yes, even video games. Guard yourself as well. Set no vile thing before your eyes or the eyes of your children.

 

 

 

awesome article!!!

[beansprouts]

Well said.

 

In a world that tries to avoid making anyone feel bad about anything a conscience isn't seen as a positive thing anymore . Too bad.

 

I agree. However, the trick will be establishing a healthy conscience while having the child still feel comfortable approaching Mom or Dad if they make a mistake. Obviously I strongly support abstinence, but ultimately my goal is to make my children accountable to God. A pledge made to me puts me between them and God by adding an element of "I let Mom and Dad down" which I fear could keep them from coming for help when they need it most.

 

Not that I pretend to have all the answers AT ALL, I am just entertaining some thoughts.

[elizabeth]

 

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/PUBLICATIONS/factsheet/fshivaidsaf.htm Consequences are far too dire to those who cannot help themselves ...I am glad we have a representative democracy so the full range of science and ethics can be utilized toward best practice rather than sex before marriage=deserving of punishment. Ethnocentrism is not good public policy nor does it display critical analysis.

[Spy Car]

Purity pledges are based on the belief that sexual activity should be inextricably bound with marriage. If a person believes that and then has sex outside of marriage, their sense of guilt is the natural consequence of the dissonance between their beliefs and their behavior. In other words, their conscience is doing its job.

 

But Drew, does the act of taking an oath before God not raise "virginity pledges" to a level approaching a "sacramental" oath? Isn't it one thing to "sin" by engaging in "pre-marital" sex, and another thing entirely to violate ones oath to God? Theologically speaking is this not far worse a crime?

 

And this study seems to suggest such pledges are routinely broken. One can certainly run afoul of perfect behavior, and I believe it is a fundamental position of the Christian that we all transgress, but why add to the damage by encouraging teens to make extra-scriptural oaths to behave in ways they might not prove able?

 

Don't such acts put their souls in mortal peril (if you believe such things)? Honest question.

 

Bill

[beansprouts]

But Drew, does the act of taking an oath before God not raise "virginity pledges" to a level approaching a "sacramental" oath? Isn't it one thing to "sin" by engaging in "pre-marital" sex, and another thing entirely to violate ones oath to God? Theologically speaking is this not far worse a crime?

 

And this study seems to suggest such pledges are routinely broken. One can certainly run afoul of perfect behavior, and I believe it is a fundamental position of the Christian that we all transgress, but why add to the damage by encouraging teens to make extra-scriptural oaths to behave in ways they might not prove able?

 

Don't such acts put their souls in mortal peril (if you believe such things)? Honest question.

 

Bill

 

No, God knows how feeble our promises are, He knows when they will be broken, and he has already made provision for that sin ;)

 

However, this does raise another point. When we make pledges, we take the responsibility of fulfilling them upon ourselves. We can not resist sin by our own efforts. We are too weak. It is only when we acknowledge our weaknesses in humility, recognize that we can not maintain purity through our own efforts, and rely on His strength that we can succeed.

[LBC]

Isn't it one thing to "sin" by engaging in "pre-marital" sex, and another thing entirely to violate ones oath to God? Theologically speaking is this not far worse a crime?

 

And this study seems to suggest such pledges are routinely broken. One can certainly run afoul of perfect behavior, and I believe it is a fundamental position of the Christian that we all transgress, but why add to the damage by encouraging teens to make extra-scriptural oaths to behave in ways they might not prove able?

 

Bill

 

You are making a good point. This is what the Bible says:

 

Ecclesiastes 5

4 When you make a vow to God, do not delay in fulfilling it. He has no pleasure in fools; fulfill your vow. 5 It is better not to vow than to make a vow and not fulfill it. 6 Do not let your mouth lead you into sin. And do not protest to the temple messenger, "My vow was a mistake." Why should God be angry at what you say and destroy the work of your hands?

 

Matthew 5:37

37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

 

James 5:12

12Above all, my brothers, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your "Yes" be yes, and your "No," no, or you will be condemned.

 

My 15 yo dd wears a purity ring, but it's a reminder to her about what she's chosen, and how she wants to live her life. I have never, and will never encourage her to make any vows or promises, but I will always encourage her to wait until marriage to become physically and emotionally intimate.

 

Lori

[Spy Car]

No, God knows how feeble our promises are, He knows when they will be broken, and he has already made provision for that sin ;)

 

However, this does raise another point. When we make pledges, we take the responsibility of fulfilling them upon ourselves. We can not resist sin by our own efforts. We are too weak. It is only when we acknowledge our weaknesses in humility, recognize that we can not maintain purity through our own efforts, and rely on His strength that we can succeed.

 

Really? I only have my non-religious form of "sacred promises" to go by, but when I got married and took an (secular) oath to be faithful to my wife I sure took it seriously.

 

And I haven't been too weak to keep the pledge without the benefit of belief in supernatural forces. You all know better than me, but I'd be really shy about putting kids in a position where they might end up lying to a divine being that they faithfully believe exists and judges them and the promise they make. Seems risky to me.

 

Bill

[beansprouts]

Really? I only have my non-religious form of "sacred promises" to go by, but when I got married and took an (secular) oath to be faithful to my wife I sure took it seriously.

 

And I haven't been too weak to keep the pledge without the benefit of belief in supernatural forces. You all know better than me, but I'd be really shy about putting kids in a position where they might end up lying to a divine being that they faithfully believe exists and judges them and the promise they make. Seems risky to me.

 

Bill

 

You said yourself they couldn't keep the pledge.

 

I am confused.

[mommaduck]

those who cannot help themselves ...

 

 

Really? We have no control and don't make decisions? We merely go into rut like animals? Sounds like an all to often used excuse, "but officer, I couldn't help myself!"

[Plaid Dad]

But Drew, does the act of taking an oath before God not raise "virginity pledges" to a level approaching a "sacramental" oath? Isn't it one thing to "sin" by engaging in "pre-marital" sex, and another thing entirely to violate ones oath to God? Theologically speaking is this not far worse a crime?[snip]

 

Don't such acts put their souls in mortal peril (if you believe such things)? Honest question.

 

Bill

 

I'm not a moral theologian, but my instinct is that the problem is not whether one has sinned twice but whether one has sinned at all. (If you're inclined, see James 2:10.)

 

People make private vows to God all the time. "I'll never drink again." "I'll never cheat again." Sometimes they keep those vows; sometimes they don't. The issue here is not so much the breaking of the vow as the objective fact of the sinful activity that called forth the vow in the first place. People don't make vows like that unless they recognize that the behavior they're swearing off is wrong. In other words, the vow may be well intended, but it is redundant: the behavior is sinful whether or not one swears not to do it.

 

To be honest, purity pledges are not a part of the landscape of my direct religious experience. There's a simple reason for that: fornication (=sex outside of marriage) is always a mortal sin according to the teachings of my church (and all other traditionally orthodox Christian bodies). It is assumed that faithful Catholics will try to avoid mortal sin. We don't need to swear that we won't engage in fornication any more than we need to swear that we won't commit murder. It's a given.

 

When we sin, we have sacramental confession as a remedy for the effects on sin on the soul. Those effects are there, objectively, whether or not we feel guilty about our actions. We also believe that by availing ourselves of the sacraments, God gives us the grace to live holy lives - not that it's easy, but it is possible (Deut. 30:11, Matt. 11:30).

 

So I would not particularly encourage young people to take a special purity pledge but rather to form their consciences according to the teachings of the Church, including John Paul II's Theology of the Body. I would encourage them to pray for the grace to remain pure in mind and body in a culture that discourages purity and modesty. I would encourage them, as far as possible, to avoid near occasions of sin, that is, any thing, person, or situation that is a known source of temptation - and those things naturally vary from person to person. I would encourage study of the vocations of marriage and of singleness, the latter including celibate vocations. And if someone came to me and told me they'd broken a private vow to God in this area of their lives, I would offer my prayers, my advice (if appropriate given our relationship), and then direct them to the sacrament of Confession. That sacrament ends with assurance of God's forgiveness - because that's what Christianity is all about.

Edited December 30, 2008 by Plaid Dad
typo and clarification

[mommaduck]

To be honest, purity pledges are not a part of the landscape of my direct religious experience. There's a simple reason for that: fornication (=sex outside of marriage) is always a mortal sin according to the teachings of my church (and all other traditionally orthodox Christian bodies). It is assumed that faithful Catholics will try to avoid mortal sin. We don't need to swear that we won't engage in fornication any more than we need to swear that we won't commit murder. It's a given. When we sin, we have sacramental confession as a remedy for the effects on sin on the soul. Those effects are there, objectively, whether or not we feel guilty about our actions. We also believe that by availing ourselves of the sacraments, God gives us the grace to live holy lives - not that it's easy, but it is possible (Deut. 30:11, Matt. 11:30).

 

So I would not particularly encourage young people to take a special purity pledge but rather to form their consciences according to the teachings of the Church, including John Paul II's Theology of the Body. I would encourage them to pray for the grace to remain pure in mind and body in a culture that discourages purity and modesty. I would encourage them, as far as possible, to avoid near occasions of sin, that is, any thing, person, or situation that is a known source of temptation - and those things naturally vary from person to person. I would encourage study of the vocations of marriage and of singleness, the latter including celibate vocations. And if someone came to me and told me they'd broken a private vow to God in this area of their lives, I would offer my prayers, my advice (if appropriate given our relationship), and then direct them to the sacrament of Confession. That sacrament ends with assurance of God's forgiveness - because that's what Christianity is all about.

 

Amen! (and I'm Reformed ;) )

[Spy Car]

You are making a good point. This is what the Bible says:

 

Ecclesiastes 5

4 When you make a vow to God, do not delay in fulfilling it. He has no pleasure in fools; fulfill your vow. 5 It is better not to vow than to make a vow and not fulfill it. 6 Do not let your mouth lead you into sin. And do not protest to the temple messenger, "My vow was a mistake." Why should God be angry at what you say and destroy the work of your hands?

 

Matthew 5:37

37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

 

James 5:12

12Above all, my brothers, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your "Yes" be yes, and your "No," no, or you will be condemned.

 

My 15 yo dd wears a purity ring, but it's a reminder to her about what she's chosen, and how she wants to live her life. I have never, and will never encourage her to make any vows or promises, but I will always encourage her to wait until marriage to become physically and emotionally intimate.

 

Lori

 

Thank you for the scriptural references Lori.

 

Bill

[Quad Shot Academy]

You are making a good point. This is what the Bible says:

 

Ecclesiastes 5

4 When you make a vow to God, do not delay in fulfilling it. He has no pleasure in fools; fulfill your vow. 5 It is better not to vow than to make a vow and not fulfill it. 6 Do not let your mouth lead you into sin. And do not protest to the temple messenger, "My vow was a mistake." Why should God be angry at what you say and destroy the work of your hands?

 

Matthew 5:37

37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

 

James 5:12

12Above all, my brothers, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your "Yes" be yes, and your "No," no, or you will be condemned.

 

I have never, and will never encourage her to make any vows or promises, but I will always encourage her to wait until marriage to become physically and emotionally intimate.

 

Lori

:iagree:

[The Governess]

But Drew, does the act of taking an oath before God not raise "virginity pledges" to a level approaching a "sacramental" oath? Isn't it one thing to "sin" by engaging in "pre-marital" sex, and another thing entirely to violate ones oath to God? Theologically speaking is this not far worse a crime?

 

And this study seems to suggest such pledges are routinely broken. One can certainly run afoul of perfect behavior, and I believe it is a fundamental position of the Christian that we all transgress, but why add to the damage by encouraging teens to make extra-scriptural oaths to behave in ways they might not prove able?

 

Don't such acts put their souls in mortal peril (if you believe such things)? Honest question.

 

Bill

 

We live in a society where giving your word or making a promise have become empty gestures. I think pledges like this, and wearing a chastity ring, have a main purpose of serving as reminders of a promise that otherwise would be easy to forget, rather than create additional punishments or guilt for offenders. It gives ceremony to the promise, and makes it a bigger deal, with the hopes that the kids that make it will think twice before breaking it.

 

I think a lot of teens that make pledges like this are doing it in a church setting where all the other kids are doing it too. So they are making the pledge along with an emotional group of teens and getting caught up in the moment. OR they are just doing it to appease their parents and get them off their backs. :tongue_smilie: It's not necessarily a personal, thought-through decision. Teens can get caught up in peer pressure to pledge abstinence just like than can to try drugs or anything else. To me, this explains the high "failure" rate of these kinds of pledges. I would think in instances where individuals have made decisions on their own to be abstinent, the success rate would be much different.

[beansprouts]

I had another thought. I know you all can't wait to hear it :D

 

Sometime during my pregnancy with dd I made the decision to give birth naturally and without medication. This was a choice that IMO needed to be made before I went into labor. Otherwise, when the pain became extreme, and my mind was muddled if I were offered relief, I just might have accepted it. Knowing the answer ahead of time helped me to succeed.

 

I think in the same way our kids may need to make the decision before they are in that moment of weakness.

[Laura K (NC)]

You said that the situation in which the pledge was made is faulty, and the pledge is made more out of peer pressure than conviction. I agree, that the intent is really important. That's where true sex ed comes in. Kids should know how very difficult it is to make a promise like this.

 

But then Spy Car seems to be saying the pledge itself is dumb, because the consequences of making a pledge then reneging are great. I don't know about this logic. If we cease to assert anything because we might either change our minds or be convinced otherwise, we couldn't assent to anything. We'd be cowards and slaves to external forces. CS Lewis would say we'd be "men without chests" as well, fearful to say that anything is true or good or beautiful, and powerless to delay gratification for a higher purpose.

 

There's more at stake here than a ring... maybe we're agreeing about that. But we might not agree that the pledge itself is worth making. And the failure of the pledge is not due to the ring or the program that instigates the promise, but the weakness of society in general and the inability to risk one kind of pain (delayed gratification) to prevent another (STDs, heartache, the loss of a beautiful gift).

 

We live in a society where giving your word or making a promise have become empty gestures. I think pledges like this, and wearing a chastity ring, have a main purpose of serving as reminders of a promise that otherwise would be easy to forget, rather than create additional punishments or guilt for offenders. It gives ceremony to the promise, and makes it a bigger deal, with the hopes that the kids that make it will think twice before breaking it.

 

I think a lot of teens that make pledges like this are doing it in a church setting where all the other kids are doing it too. So they are making the pledge along with an emotional group of teens and getting caught up in the moment. OR they are just doing it to appease their parents and get them off their backs. :tongue_smilie: It's not necessarily a personal, thought-through decision. Teens can get caught up in peer pressure to pledge abstinence just like than can to try drugs or anything else. To me, this explains the high "failure" rate of these kinds of pledges. I would think in instances where individuals have made decisions on their own to be abstinent, the success rate would be much different.

[elizabeth]

Really? We have no control and don't make decisions? We merely go into rut like animals? Sounds like an all to often used excuse, "but officer, I couldn't help myself!"

 

"The physical immaturity of younger women and women's lower status in society may contribute to disproportionate HIV infection rates. Women's lower status may prevent them from having control of their sexual relationships. For example, studies on women's first sexual experience show that over half of young women in Malawi and over 20 percent of young women in Nigeria experienced forced sexual intercourse.6,7 " From the front page of the article I posted along with my comment thus your comments make no sense. Forced intercourse is precisely what I am referring to it happens all the time in countries other than ours-hence the charge of ethnocentrism. I am all for personal responsibility.

[Laura K (NC)]

Great post!

[Nicole M]

Purity pledges are based on the belief that sexual activity should be inextricably bound with marriage. If a person believes that and then has sex outside of marriage, their sense of guilt is the natural consequence of the dissonance between their beliefs and their behavior. In other words, their conscience is doing its job.

 

In my experience, one problem with this line of thinking is that when sexual activity is linked with marriage, some young women (and perhaps young men) assume that when a feller really lights her fire, he's the one. If parents are going to go down this road, they must be very careful to help their children understand that the sexual urge is natural and happens, even outside of marriage. This is a very difficult concept for young people who are dealing with raging hormones.

 

My parents referred to premarital sex as "inter-genital masturbation." This was extremely confusing to me, because I knew that sexual desire was good, even holy. Perhaps my parents simply did not do a good job in this area, but the "dissonance" I experienced was far more complicated than simply my conscience doing its job, and had long term, tragic consequences. I've come to learn that my experience is very common among my peers who grew up in homes where sex outside of marriage was perceived as sinful. An extreme example is a friend of mine who waited for marriage to have sex, married a charming man who beat the living daylights out of her. She later described herself as "blinded by lust."

 

My point is that our best intentions with our children can have unintended, harmful consequences, and with something as tender and beautiful as our sexuality, we must be very careful.

[Erica in PA]

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.

 

What I meant was that most girls that I have known who have worn a purity ring have done so as an outward symbol of their own conviction that they plan to wait until marriage for sex. I was contrasting that with girls who might wear one only because it was given to them by their parents-- and the desire to remain sexually pure before marriage is something that can only come out of a person's own heart, not just because that's what their parents want from them.

 

I don't know what you mean by objectified. Just as a wedding ring is a symbol of a commitment to marriage, a purity ring is a symbol of a commitment to sexual purity. I don't see any objectification in either one. Both are outward symbols of an inward commitment.

 

Erica

[*********]

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.

 

Wow. WOW.

I coudn't agree with you less.

That's just, wow.

I absolutly want my boys to wait until they're married. That is God's plan. I find nothing at all 'creepy' about it, and honestly, I had no idea anyone actually found it creepy.

I guess, now I do.

[Erica in PA]

."

 

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."

 

It's possible for young people to have genuine feelings of affection (and even love) for one another and still want to have sex.

 

 

Yes, and it's also possible to love someone, want to have sex, and yet *not* have sex. It's not a forgone conclusion that teenagers will have sex, simply because they have the desire to. Many of my friends were able to wait for marriage, despite the temptations. And, all of them consider the rewards of doing so more than worth it, even putting spiritual considerations aside. Things such as having avoided pregnancy, diseases, the pain of breakups of intimate relationships, not having sexual memories with other people besides their eventual spouse, etc. Many of those I know who did not wait for marriage deeply regret their decision. I don't know anyone who waited who regrets that.

[Nicole M]

"The physical immaturity of younger women and women's lower status in society may contribute to disproportionate HIV infection rates. Women's lower status may prevent them from having control of their sexual relationships. For example, studies on women's first sexual experience show that over half of young women in Malawi and over 20 percent of young women in Nigeria experienced forced sexual intercourse.6,7 " From the front page of the article I posted along with my comment thus your comments make no sense. Forced intercourse is precisely what I am referring to it happens all the time in countries other than ours-hence the charge of ethnocentrism. I am all for personal responsibility.

 

We also tend to forget that in the US, the majority of the fathers of children born to teen mothers are over 21. Technically, that's statutory rape.

[Erica in PA]

Taking steps to prevent unwanted pregnancy or being exposed to STDs are "cheating the system"? Really???

 

You don't need to argue with me about sex being the mechanism for reproducing the species, or how likely "unprotected" sex is to lead to pregnancy. It's precisely because of this (and the chances of illness) that protective measures to prevent these things aren't a bad idea if kids are active. No?

 

Bill

 

Imo, choosing to take part in the act which is obviously and clearly designed to create a baby, when you are at a time and a situation in your life when having a baby would admittedly be *disastrous* for you-- that is foolishness, imo. And hoping to decrease your odds by the use of contraception, which does not always work, is not much better, logically speaking. I would of course rather have someone use contraception than not, but it comes nowhere close to being as safe and careful and wise as abstaining altogether.

[elizabeth]

 

We also tend to forget that in the US, the majority of the fathers of children born to teen mothers are over 21. Technically, that's statutory rape.

I am well aware and worked in the field and reported accordingly. Even worse the mothers who would accompany their daughters to a check up and willingly shared that the boyfriend was 21 and often older ,they had no problem with it. Often times they would help pay the bills no technical rape in my book that is child prostitution. Objectification and exploitation through the generations...it is sad. I am a mandatory reporter and take my obligation in that regard very seriously.

[Nicole M]

I am well aware and worked in the field and reported accordingly. Even worse the mothers who would accompany their daughters to a check up and willingly shared that the boyfriend was 21 and often older ,they had no problem with it. Often times they would help pay the bills no technical rape in my book that is child prostitution. Objectification and exploitation through the generations...it is sad. I am a mandatory reporter and take my obligation in that regard very seriously.

 

The statistics about teen pregnancy and sexual abuse are sickening.

 

I guess that within the context of this thread, though, we have to ask -- who are the young people taking these pledges? If the pledge isn't working, and if these teens are engaging in unprotected sex one would assume that pregnancies are happening. Who are the fathers? Are they other teens?

 

I would be curious to know some things about the pledge takers. For instance, what is the average income and educational background of families whose teens are taking these types of vows. And I wonder if churches will respond to this data with other programs besides the oath taking?

[Zelda]

Really? I only have my non-religious form of "sacred promises" to go by, but when I got married and took an (secular) oath to be faithful to my wife I sure took it seriously.

 

And I haven't been too weak to keep the pledge without the benefit of belief in supernatural forces. You all know better than me, but I'd be really shy about putting kids in a position where they might end up lying to a divine being that they faithfully believe exists and judges them and the promise they make. Seems risky to me.

 

Bill

 

The risk being that they will make a promise and not be true to their word? Perhaps I'm not understanding you. Because I don't think we lower our standards until they are sufficiently easy to meet and failure becomes exceedingly unlikely.

 

For people of faith I don't think its going to be very convincing to suggest that they abandon their belief because its tough for kids to live up to the moral code of their religion.

[Spy Car]

The risk being that they will make a promise and not be true to their word? Perhaps I'm not understanding you. Because I don't think we lower our standards until they are sufficiently easy to meet and failure becomes exceedingly unlikely.

 

Yes, the risk is taking oaths that very likely will not be kept. Call me old-fashioned, but to me not keeping solemn promises is extremely bad behavior. I don't make promises i don't think I can keep, and I certainly wouldn't coerce a child of mine into a position where they felt forced to do so.

 

Does this mean you don't teach right from wrong? No. But making false oaths to me falls in to the class of wrongs. And the various quotes posted earlier by Lori shows there are numerous references in the Hebrew and Christian that show making false oaths to God is considered an grave offense in those faith systems.

 

And such oaths are unnecessary since a child can follow their faith (or their internal sense of right and wrong) and remain a virgin without taking oaths, wearing rings, or engaging in public ceremonies.

 

For people of faith I don't think its going to be very convincing to suggest that they abandon their belief because its tough for kids to live up to the moral code of their religion.

 

I didn't suggest anyone should abandon their faith or their beliefs.

 

I'm unaware of a religion that requires "virginity oaths" as part of its practice. And again, taking "oaths" seems to be a discouraged practice from my (limited) understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

 

Bill