If you ever want to see an egregious example of press spin, not to mention shallow science reporting, just read the New York Times and glance through the headlines on any given day. The latest example is a headline reading "Study Finds That Teenage Virginity Pledges Are Rarely Kept."
Although I have a bone to pick with cultural conservatives, I'll get to them later. Now I'm going to pick on the left-leaning bias of the press, and slipshod reporting when it comes to matters of science.
I've scanned several news sources, and all pretty much ape the New York Times' coverage of this story, some nearly word-for-word: 88% of teens who take a pledge not to have premarital sex wind up breaking it, and those kids have almost (almost) as much risk for developing STDs. Therefore, the press suggests, the study "challenges the assumptions underlying the Bush administration's promotion of abstinence programs."
Pfaugh! If you ever needed proof that reporters are, for the most part, completely ignorant about science, and tend to be reactionary about conservative ideals, you can look no further. Not only is the negative spin ridiculous, but they don't see fit to name the study or where you can go to read a copy of the original. Most of the press accounts haven't bothered to point out that these abstinence programs were first brought to the national scene by the Clinton administration, either. The Bushies have only continued what the Clintonistas created.
But let's look at what the press accounts tell us, when you ignore the spin and look at the (rather measly) data they've actually reported about the study:
1) 12% of the kids keep their pledge and never have sex before marriage. If I told you I could reduce the rate of heart disease or cancer by 10% with a certain program, almost any doctor on the planet would consider that exciting news.
Indeed, just this week, physicians everywhere were excited to learn that certain drugs reduce risk of heart disease by 16%, and as high as 26% in some cases. So it seems to me that if we can confidently state that abstinence programs reduce teen sexual activity by more than 10%, they cannot rationally be called a failure. The numbers could be better, but then again, these programs are in their infancy and might well be modified to improve those odds.
2) All the press accounts say that the kids who take the abstinence pledge wind up contracting STDs at almost--almost!--the same rate as kids who don't take it. Implication: there's probably a minor reduction.
3) The press accounts all acknowledge that kids who took the pledge delayed onset of sexual activity by an average of 18 months. This is a huge reduction.
4) Mysteriously, not a single one of the press accounts mentions pregnancy. But why is it that I find it impossible to believe that kids who delay having sex by an average of 18 months, with 12% of them never having sex at all before marriage, are likely to be a group of kids who have a lower overall unwed teen pregnancy rate? Why is this not in the reporting?
5) The press accounts all acknowledge that the kids who took the pledge are more likely to get married. They also say the kids who take the pledge and break it "wind up having sex before marriage," but what percentage of those are kids who have sex with their fiance/fiancee? They don't bother saying.
So, despite the negative and partisan spin, the fact appears to be that the Clinton administration's abstinence programs are posting impressive results after only a few years.
So what should the next step be? Obviously, some minor adjustments to the programs are probably called for, perhaps with a greater emphasis on the fact that you're still at high risk for STDs if you wind up breaking your abstinence pledge. I'd also think that it would be wise if abstinence programs also placed more emphasis on what an unplanned pregnancy can do to the lives of young mothers and their offspring, to drive home the fact that you're playing with fire if you're having sex at that age.
Still, even if some changes might be called for, it is impossible to deny that, after only a few years, these programs are posting measurably positive results!
Now, a bone I have to pick with conservative Christians and cultural conservatives in general is that hey tend to be unrealistic about teen sex. These days, girls tend to enter puberty at much earlier ages than they did 100 or more years in the past. The average age of the onset of menarche used to be around 13, and it's now around 11, with a few girls hitting it as early as 10 or even younger.
Meanwhile, as a society, we have over the last 100 years or so begun to expect people to marry at ridiculously advanced ages. People used to get married around the age of 13 or 14. A girl who was 18 and unmarried was practically an old maid, and if you didn't have kids by the time you were 20 you were suspected of being barren. That has been human reality pretty much throughout all of human history, until the 20th century.
I've heard people make snide, snotty remarks about the fact that the Prophet Muhummad married a 13 year old girl. But the fact is that 13 has been considered prime marrying age for girls throughout almost all of human history, in almost all cultures, pretty much anywhere you look.
Go read Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, and contemplate that, in that play, the character of Juliet was 14 years old. Her wealthy father, Lord Capulet, was trying to find the ideal husband for her, one that would leave her secure and boost the Capulet family's prestige. Juliet wasn't exactly an old maid at 14, but she was right at the age where she was expected to get married. If she had still been unmarried at 16, people would have assumed she was homely or somehow otherwise undesirable!
Although I can't remember for certain, I believe that Romeo was supposed to be 14 or 15 himself in that play.
In other words, Romeo and Juliet were young, but not unusually young. They were just sweet and innocent and right around the age that most people got married. They were "young star-crossed lovers," but only young in the sense that they were just at the age that most people got hitched.
The best production of Romeo & Juliet I ever saw was by a college troupe. They really did a superb job. But here's the thing: while it's always amusing to see 22 year-olds playing people in their 40s, if you know your history you realize it's every bit as weird, maybe weirder, to see people in their 20s playing the parts of Romeo or Juliet. They are much, much too old to be playing those characters! But if someone did try to hire actors of the authentic age, the producers would probably be accused of child abuse today.
This, by the way, was probably the biggest historical flaw in the generally excellent Shakespeare In Love. Mind you, I quite liked that movie, and found it very clever and moving. But the tendency to make it some sort of feminist revolt against oppressive patriarchal/puritan values was ridiculous!
The reason that female romantic leads in Shakespearian times were usually played by boys--typically pre-pubescent boys, by the way--was that it would be considered very inappropriate for a 13 or 14 year old girl to be kissed and hugged and pawed in public by a man not her husband. Indeed, it would probably been the women of that era, not the men, who would have been most offended. They would have considered it a form of prostitution, and a dangerous (yes, I said dangerous) example for their own daughters. It would have been considered practically pornographic, and for good reason: in those days, a sexually active young girl would be highly likely to wind up pregnant, with a family forced to support her because she had no husband.
If they could support her, which many families could not.
It was this, and not "puritan values" or a desire to "oppress women," that drove such values in Shakespeare's time. And in most other eras and cultures, for that matter. Young women today are spoiled when it comes to these things. They generally fail to appreciate just how hard life was for everyone before the 20th century. We too often forget, or never learn at all, that prior to modern medicine and birth control, premarital sex was extremely dangerous, most especially to young girls.
Furthermore, when I say "dangerous," I mean dangerous in a genuinely life-destroying way. Not "oh drat, this could be very inconvenient and emotionally wrenching." No, I mean, "I could wind up dead and/or starving in the streets, begging for a living and possibly with a child who dies because I can't take care of him" dangerous.
All those old-fashioned "puritanical" values did not come into being because nasty authoritarian religious maniacs forced them on people. Or because big bad brutal men liked stepping on women. They existed because they were functional, and almost all of them existed in order to protect women.
A big struggle in our modern age is that most of those dangers have been massively ameliorated. The danger is still there, but it's hugely less than what it once was. 10,000 years of human history have not prepared us to cope with these new circumstances for humanity, so there are obviously going to be tensions and confusions today. But it helps, I think, if we recognize that the last few generations, we're facing challenges we've never faced before as a species. Rather than railing against it, we should be recognizing it, and using that knowledge to help us figure out what to do.
So, having made that point, let me get back to my beef with cultural conservatives: we live in an age where sex outside of marriage, while not exactly safe, is far, far less dangerous than it ever has been. Simultaneously, we almost universally expect people to wait 10-15 years after puberty, sometimes even longer, before they even think about getting married or having kids.
At no time in human history have we put those kinds of expectations about sex onto young people.
Of course sexual frustration is going to be much higher today than in earlier eras, and of course young people are going to be far, far more likely to experiment with sex outside of marriage. It has very little to do with lack of discipline, lack of willpower, "falling away from God," or those other canards that cultural conservatives so often bring up. There may be a kernel of truth to some of what conservatives say, but the most important factors by far are that we are living longer, sex is considerably less dangerous, and we're expecting people to wait longer than we ever have before becoming sexually active. So of course sex outside of marriage, and children outside of marriage, are going to be more common!
A core conservative belief--one I think conservatives are generally right about--is that human nature doesn't change much. That being the case, you'd have to be daft not to think that the unique mix of factors we face in the modern world would not result in more sexual promiscuity, and would not present unique challenges that no one's entirely sure how to answer.
Now, an interesting thing to contemplate is that we as a society may be making a mistake to encourage people to wait so long to get married and have kids. At times I think it's a huge mistake. I could write a whole essay defending that, but here's a basic point to ponder: one of the biggest frustrations for women these days is that they delay and delay and delay having kids, put tons of time into career, then find themselves in their 30s with their biological alarm clocks going off, frantically thinking about having kids. Then when they have kids, they get hugely frustrated because balancing career and childrearing is exhausting.
But what if you had 2-3 kids by the time you were 21, and then stopped having them? By the time you were in your mid-30s, you would have the next 30-40 years of your life to develop career, go to school, and persue outside interests. You'd also be able to begin playing with your own grandchildren while you were still young and vital, if your daughters started having kids at the same age you did. If this were widespread, it would be normal for parents to help their children start raising their own babies. Extended families would probably be more common, and the whole kids-vs.-career struggle would be hugely ameliorated. A woman in her early 30s would be in the prime of life, with endless possibilities still ahead of her to do whatever she wanted, with no worries at all about her "biological clock ticking," for she'd have taken care of that business long ago!
Ah, but anyway, that's not the reality we face today. The reality we face is that kids are hitting puberty earlier, dealing with sexual urges at a much younger age, and are simultaneously being asked to deny those urges far more than kids of any other era were asked to. At the same time, medical science has made sex outside of marriage less dangerous. It still has its dangers, but it's far less dangerous.
Common sense should tell anyone what the results of all that would be.
It should be obvious that any program which reduces sexual activity in teens can never provide 100% perfect results. But it should also be obvious to any thinking person that throwing up your hands and saying, "oh well, you can't do anything about it!" is just dumb.
Listen up: I grew up knowing a lot of girls who got pregnant in their teens. Not a single one of them did not know how pregnancy occurred. Not a single one of them was unaware that she could get pregnant. Not a single one of them lacked access to birth control. Every single one of them got pregnant by choice. Sure, some of them would lie and say they "didn't know you could get pregnant just doing it once," or that it was an "accident," but the truth they just said that to make the adults happy. Every single one of them really knew better. They did it anyway.
So, if a program can be shown to reduce teen pregnancy, to reduce sexual activity, to increase respect for marriage, and if it can with some modification also reduce STDs, then it's a positive program. I'd like to see such programs put more emphasis on the cost and struggles that single motherhood entail, and I'd like to see them put more emphasis on the fact that if they break their pledge, that's no excuse to get careless or stupid. But damn, I'm pretty impressed that these programs are already producing such positive results!
The Clinton administration should be praised for having the courage and innovation to start these programs. The Bush administration should be praised for continuing them, and should be encouraged to take a hard look at them and see if the programs shouldn't be modified somewhat to address the areas where the programs are a disappointment.
But so far, despite the negative press spin, it appears that these programs are producing significantly positive results. We ought to acknowledge that, rather than suggesting that they're a failure. Clearly, they are not a failure.
(Via Prattlings.)
It's not only science reporting, it's any kind of reporting outside the realm of "common knowledge." I had an interesting conversation with a guy from a major newspaper yesterday. He pretty much verified the idea I've had for some time -- that a reporter will most often accept at face value what they're being told by any self-proclaimed "expert," and not bother to check facts. They go with what their initial focus and intention was in putting the story in the paper in the first place.
So every October you have nearly every paper in the country reporting the same unsupported factoids on domestic violence. The same will apply to any charity/social services kind of "National Month" or week, from literacy to homelessness to animal shelters. They presume their "expert source" knows what they are talking about, and most often don't take the time to check further.
Many reporters these days are part-timers or freelancers, and their primary responsibility is in keeping their gig. So the story will go along with the general tone of the publication, and the local climate politically.
People like us are giving the Big3 media a wake-up call. Ain't it fun? ;>)
Good points. It makes sense to me - Less sex equals less STDs. Sounds like news to me
I think the phrase "Clinton administration's abstinence programs" looks funny.
(not that I'm denying there existence or anything)
The stats from that story struck me as dubious: 99% of non-pledgers had sex before marriage, and 88% of pledgers? Does this not strike you as extraordinarily high?
I mean, I know teen sex is widespread, but I would think more than 1% of even non-pledgers would at least have difficulty finding a willing partner, attractiveness demographics being what they are... Or have things changed that much since I was a teen so many years ago?
To me, those two numbers throw the whole study into question. I have to think there's some underlying bias in the how the study was conducted.
Well it would sure be helpful if we could find an original copy of the published results so we could examine questions like that, wouldn't it?
I spent some time searching but gave up in frustration. God I hate reading popular accounts of research sometimes. The press screws it up so often it's maddening.
Matthew, I thought the same thing when I first heard this on CNN. I truly hope those numbers are wrong for my kids sake.
Dean, Great insights as always. There is no way I could have remained celibate until I was 25. That said, I think that if kids in their late teens and early 20's are going to have sex, they should make an effort to have sex with someone who is potentially their life partner. There is much to be said about waiting for the right person even if that person doesn't turn out to "Ms. Right" or "Mr. Right".
I blogged about the topic of earlier puberty/later marriage back in July. (If you go to my site, it's at the very end of the "S-E-X" category.)
From a ministerial point of view, we know that "virginity pledges" aren't going to be 100% effective . . . parents tend to have significantly higher hopes, but then, they have to.
Hate to nitpick, but the English lover in me protests. Juliet was 13- "On Lammas Eve shall she be fourteen." Her mother had likely been married at 11 and pregnant by 12- "I was your mother much upon these years when you are now a maid." Romeo was about 16, I believe. Only the influential families could afford to have their sons marry so young- usually men had to build property before he could pay for a wife.
I find it interesting (not to mention frustrating) that an "abstinence program" is considered a reasonable solution to the problem of high out-of-wedlock birth rates, but speeding up the curriculum and shortening childhood to a reasonable length is not.
One problem is that a lot of parents seem to consider a ridiculously long childhood to be a feature, not a bug. I've run into several that fundamentally hate the idea of their children growing up, and will do anything they can to prevent it. This completely mystifies me.
Your objections make a lot of sense, Dean, so as a Protestant I'll try to explain my side. Namely, as teenagers might be *physically* prepared for sex at 13 or 14, I highly doubt most of them are *mentally* prepared. They're still in junior high, for goodness's sake! Unfortunately, our education system is set up so that someone cannot really take the time to care for and raise a family at least until they graduate at 18. And if you wait 10 years afterwards to go back to college, it's really hard to get into a good school or remember everything you learned in high school (I've forgotton most of Calculus 1 and 2, and it's only be 1.5 years). Teenage marriages are much more likely to end in divorce than marriages by older, more prepared young adults.
And extramarital sex may be a little less dangerous these days, but I don't see that it's *that* much less dangerous. STDs like HIV do kill, after all. And many young girls have to choose between ruining their lives by giving birth in high school or aborting the baby (that is, *killing* the baby). Maybe this is a glass-half-full/glass-half-empty situation, but I hardly think those are inconsequential consequences.
Honestly, no matter how much feminists may talk about how the "freedom" to "express your sexuality" is a wonderful thing, it's just made my life a lot harder. Two hundred years ago, if a man wanted me to have sex with him, I would have been perfectly justified in setting my father on him with a revolver. Today, it's perfectly socially acceptable for people to have sex outside of marriage, so all the guys I date keep pressuring me for it -- every other girl I've dated has done it; why won't you? And I believe that that's the reason so many girls today have sex so young; not because they really want to have sex, but because their boyfriends guilt them into doing it. The old "you would if you loved me" excuse could be much more easily resisted centuries ago, because you had the support of the rest of society. But today the rest of society's doing it too, and telling you you're "repressed" if you don't.
Here's a couple reasons why I'll wait until marriage to have sex: as a Christian I believe sex is more than a physical act; it is an act that will binds me and my husband together mentally, emotionally, and physically - "the two shall become one". Many people turn off the "intimacy" switch in their head and enjoy sex just on a physical level, but why wouldn't I want to save that night of discovery for my wedding night? I don't want to be able to compare my husband's skill in bed with some of my past boyfriends' - and I'd certainly be upset if he was comparing me to his past girlfriends! I haven't met my future husband yet (or maybe I have and just don't know it) but I know that some day I will love him, and I will be glad I saved my virginity and gave it to him.
And, yes, I know that preaching this to a bunch of kids won't do any good at all. But what are we supposed to do? There really *are* so many benefits of waiting until marriage, there really *are* so many problems incurred in not waiting! And, obviously, in this day and age teenagers can't get married at 13 or 14! You've criticized us, Dean, for our actions; if you were in our place what would you do instead? That's what constructive criticism is all about, isn't it, offering better alternatives?
Maybe we need a pill (instead of a pledge) which preserves your virginity. Then 10% effectiveness would be considered great and everybody would be happy, including consevatives, the medical industry etc.
"And, yes, I know that preaching this to a bunch of kids won't do any good at all. But what are we supposed to do? There really *are* so many benefits of waiting until marriage, there really *are* so many problems incurred in not waiting! And, obviously, in this day and age teenagers can't get married at 13 or 14!"
And that the whole problem. You're not going to get everyone to stay single and childfree for the first 8-10 of their childbearing years, and even if you could, that still wouldn't make it right to demand it.
And it's not like we're educating these children as fast as humanly possible. Far from it. They only meet 180 days per year, for one thing.
The point is, there's no reason on Earth that teenagers have to be ignorant and helpless. Nor is it right for us to leave them in that condition and then come up with programs to "encourage" them to adjust to the helpless and ignorant condition that we left them in, rather than fixing our schools so that they won't be ignorant and helpless and so that they will be able to have real families with children born inside of wedlock.
Kacie, I don't think Dean is criticizing you for your actions at all. Much of his essay echoes what you say. He's just asking us cultural conservatives to be a bit more understanding of what drives young people to do what, in the long run, is not in their best interests.
Dean, you wondered about the teenage pregnancy rates. Well, they're at a new low. I think this has a two-fold cause- abstinence and welfare reform. As you have alluded, young women (even in the throes of raging hormones) sometimes do use their heads. I would say sex ed helped lower pregnancy rates, but I don't think that is true, because the risk of STD's is at an all-time high. It is estimated that half of all young adults will acquire an STD. Syphilis rates are rising. The cost in future infertility and the emotional toll of having an incurable disease (HSV, HPV, and HIV) is staggering. I have treated so many precancerous cervical lesions in teenagers that it makes my head spin. I hate to tromp on any feminist toes, but guess what, life ain't fair and a huge biological double standard exists that no amount of "women should be free to express their sexuality," talk is going to fix. ALL of these disease disproportionately affect women. You want to advocate for women? Stop telling them they can be like men.
I don't know what is wrong with the media, public health and the medical profession in general. I think they have a hard time thinking all of these abstinence advocates have been right all along. Furthermore, the point about who your premarital sex is with is incredibly important. Sleeping with your fiancee is hugely different than sleeping with ten of the guys in your sophomore class. Delaying sexual activity by 18 months means the difference between being 15 and 17. That too, is a big difference, as any parent of a teen will tell you!
Clearly, I don't believe there is "safe sex" for a teenager. I do agree that we need to understand why they do what they do.
Dean,
You're right, the abstinence programs seem to be doing pretty well considering, although the media spins it otherwise. The thing is, in today's world, if someone chooses to abstain until marriage in their 20s and even into their 30s, our sex-obsessed society seems to regard this person as a "freak". They must be "repressed", they have "hang-ups", there's something "wrong" with them, it's just not "natural". It's even that way for women, although I'm sure it's much worse if you're a man. (After all, men are expected to "play the field" and "sow their wild oats" and all that crap.) So if people try to resist pressure and do the right thing for themselves, for their future husband/wife and in God's eyes, there is a lot of scorn and ridicule that goes with it. That's just something else to consider when it comes to abstinence and the success of abstinence programs.
And one more thing...what Kacie said! ;-)
Dean said "Ah, but anyway, that's not the reality we face today."
Teenagers and children need to understand that they are RESPONSIBLE for their own reality. Society is great to talk about for general trends, but each person makes their own choices and must live with those consequences. I think too often we allow ourselves to fall into patterns of behavior based on what others expect from us which robs us of the role of expecting things from ourselves as we passively amble along.
Incidentially, that would have been me if I hadn't married a boy with a strong sense of self who asked me what I REALLY wanted from life, in an ideal world. He made me think. So, here I am. Married relatively young, had children relatively young, although I did get the college degree before the children. Instead of a career, I'm a stay-at-home-schooling mother (which I suppose is indeed a career). But, those were all MY choices. Life didn't just "happen" to me.
I'm always shocked at the friends that call me "lucky". I am lucky, but they usually mean it to suggest that my life just happened to me, that nothing I did led to this life. They STILL don't understand that I made choices to get to this point, like a flow-chart. They can not fathom that my actions led to this consequence. I think thats where we really fail young teenagers today, by not teaching that actions have consequences.
You certainly make a lot of good points, Dean, but I have to also agree with Kacie.
While it is certainly true that many of the risks involved in pre-marital sex are greatly reduced, there are still many problems that it brings into someone's life.
As a Christian who has remained committed to abstinance in my personal life, I know it is a very difficult thing to do. It is certainly not something that we can expect most people will do, and we should not demean those who choose not to. We should, however, continue to teach the benefits of abstinance and hold it up as an ideal.
Dean,
You've hit the nail on the head vis-a-vis the unnatural extension of childhood. As a "right-wing zealot," I have had several discussions with my Pastor about this very issue. His son, 19 years old, worked for me last summer, and is exceedingly immature and unreliable. But he has a steady girlfriend who is in her senior year of high school.
I discussed with my Pastor that hormones were raging, and expecting Christian adults to wait until their late 20's or early 30's to engage in sex is unrealistic, and even unnatural. His response was "Temperance is a virtue." To which I wanted to reply, "Bullshit!" But I restrained myself while picturing a whole flock of Ostriches taking their afternoon nap.
Today, we simultaneously undervalue and overvalue our children. We undervalue their ability to take on responsibility and be held accountable. And we overvalue them as "living dolls" i.e. possessions rather than independent moral beings worthy of respect.
I do not consider my children to "belong" to me. I consider myself privileged to be able to contribute to their lives and help them learn to become responsible adults. My wife doesn't fully agree with me, because she would like to have them around longer. But as much as I enjoy their company, my children genuinely appreciate the fact that I both make demands of them and give them respect. They are very clear on the idea that they are ultimately responsible for their lives and their choices.
Last year, 5 days after my son turned 13, he was picked up by the cops for breaking glass bottles against a rock formation while walking home from school. He was offered the choice of picking up his mess plus some other trash nearby, or a $250 fine and a trip to the jailhouse. I was proud of him because 1) he was completely respectful of the police officer, 2) he took responsibility for his actions, 3) he took his punishment without complaint, and 4) he did not try to cover up what he did. He learned his lesson, and that was the end of it.
To expect adolescents to fulfill their vows of abstinence requires realistic expectations of parents. The desire for sex is not some nasty, filthy desire which must be quashed. In fact, the very first commandment in the Bible is God's command to Adam and Eve to go have sex - "Be fruitful and multiply." To ask our children to suppress this God-given healthy natural desire for a decade or more is just plain sadistic.
A better strategy would be to prepare our children to become functioning adults at an earlier age, rather than unnaturally extending adolescence. This is a rather counter-culture strategy, and requires a different outlook on child-rearing from the day the child is born.
In the book of Timothy, Paul instructs that young widows should remarry in order to avoid the inevitable trouble that will occur because of frustrated desires. Female sexuality is a wonderful thing, and mothers in the church should be teaching sexuality to their daughters. Self-control is important in all aspects of life, especially in sexuality. But Christianity is not Aescetism, and extended self-denial is harmful.
Paul even intructs that abstinence within a marriage should not last for extended time periods. "Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again lest Satan tempt you because of your lack of self-control." I Cor. 6:5
The problem I see with abstinence programs is that they are incomplete. They elevate self-denial to unreasonable levels, and do not teach children about the natural healthy desire for sex.
I wish the women of the church would take the time to discuss sex in a healthy manner, even down to sexual techniques, foreplay, etc. But unfortunately, many church women think openly discussing the details of sex is somehow unseemly.
Where, I ask, do church goers expect their children to get their information if not from their families and the church? Too often, the instruction is only on what NOT to do, instead of being a well rounded instruction on the proper role of sex in relationships and society. Many church women need to get over their queasiness about discussing sex with one another in the church. There is nothing inherently "holy" in ignoring God's first command. There is nothing "holy" about being terminally frigid, and unwilling to fully explore sexuality.
Song of Solomon should be required reading for young adults. Song 4:1-6 is a pretty graphic description of a man exploring the body of a woman. He starts at the top of her head, describing her body as he descends to the face, the neck, the breasts, and then speaks to going to "the mountain of myrrh, and to the hill of frankincencse." Oral sex anyone?
The Bible is not prudish about sex. It is plain and straight forward. Abstinence until marriage is the Biblical teaching. But extended self-denial that ignores the natural biology of young men and women, and the practice of extending adolescence into the late 20's is not the Biblical pattern. And Christians need to pull their heads out of the sand, and discuss all of biblical sexuality, not just the "don'ts."
The Victorian Ideal is no more Scriptural than raging promiscuity. The Bible's advice is all things in moderation. Abstinence is good theology, but expecting healthy adults to ignore their God-given hormonal impulses to make the beast with two backs is simply dreaming.
By the way, I practiced abstinence until marriage, but I married at 23, and my wife was 21. The one year and 20 days of our courtship was excruciating.
A quick note on your point about abstinence programs making kids less likely to get STDs. That's a misinterpretation of the facts.
Out of 100 kids who don't pledge virginity, 99 have premarital sex. 8 of them get an STD. That's about 8.1% of the sexually active population.
Out of 100 kids who pledge virginity, 88 have premarital sex. 8 of them get an STD. That's around 9.1% of the sexually active population. A higher percentage of kids who pledge virginity contract an STD.
The study also finds that kids who pledge to remain virgins are less prepared for the eventuality of sex and therefore practice unsafe sex when it happens.
Here is an article that gives links and solid numbers: http://www.kron.com/Global/story.asp?S=1700755 Your inability to find this info is not evidence of a leftist media conspiracy.
The link to the study is at the bottom of the page.
Tony: No one said anything about a conspiracy. Just by using that word, you say more about yourself than you do about me or anything I said.
For the record? That article doesn't appear to have been online when I wrote my critique of the New York Times. Only three newspapers had that report up when I posted in the wee hours of the morning.
Thank you for finding the data. What is quite clearly shows is that the kids who pledge abstinence are slightly less likely to get STDs. Which should be acknowledged up front.
Now, the more subtle point is that those who make the pledge and break it are, verrrry slightly, more likely to get an STD. Which would indicate that modification to the abstinence program, incorporating this new data into the program, would be called for. It certainly doesn't challenge the fundamental basis of the program, which is clearly a success.
The assertion that the kids who pledge abstinence are "less prepared" for sex deserves serious challenging, by the way. You're suggesting that kids don't understand condoms before they have sex? I find it more likely to believe that the kids who pledge abstinence are more likely to get swept up in passion instead of clinically thinking ahead. That being the case, some modification to the program is probably in order, to incorporate this reality.
Nothing changes the fact that the programs have been shown to be successful by a large number of measures--including the fact that the kids are delaying sex until much older and that those who take the pledge are slighly less likely to get STDs. Now if we can address in a more blunt manner making sure that the kids what can happen if they break the pledge, we'll be a line or two closer to improvement.
Oh, by the way, Tony? If you're going to be rude, next time don't bother posting, as I'm certain that someone with more maturity would have been along sooner or later to share the study with us. Thanks in advance.
Tony,
The article you linked give a few more numbers than the other stories I've seen, but does not provide links (that I see) to the original study. Nor does it include the numbers you used in making your point. In fact, it says the rates of STDs for pledging teens are in fact lower, just not to a statistically significant degree:
"The study first questioned 12- to 18-year-olds and followed up on them six years later as adults. It found that the STD rates for whites who pledged virginity was 2.8 percent compared with 3.5 percent for those who didn't pledge.
For blacks, it was 18.1 percent and 20.3 percent. For Hispanics, it was 6.7 percent and 8.6 percent."
Did you crunch the numbers a different way?
I find the 99% and 88% premarital sex numbers hard to believe as a national average (one story I saw described this as a national study). I don't think that means there's a conspriracy, it just means I want to know where they drew their 12,000 sample from.
As far as abstinence vs 'safe sex' ed programs go, I personally prefer a 'teach both, but promote abstinence' approach.
Beyond the personal knowledge that it is possible - and not really all that difficult for some - to abstain until at least the age of 25, so long as they be well-educated, there's also this:
My sister is pregnant with her second child. She was using birth control, because as a single parent she really doesn't need the added stress and financial burden right now. It didn't work.
So while I haven't seen anyone take the position of 'Just teach them how to use a condom because they'll have sex anyway' on this thread, I espouse approximately the following program (with no information on how well it matches up with common abstinence programs):
1) Teach them the dangers.
2) Promote abstinence at least until the 'affianced' stage (at that point, it's almost a foregone conclusion that they'll at least briefly marry the person).
3) Teach them how to use the various birth control methods if they insist on having sex.
4) Teach them that those methods are not reliable.
5) Remind them to get their partner screened, even if they're 'sure' they're clean, because boys and girls will lie about it.
I'm probably a little to the right of Dean on this, but I'm definately to the left of the 'religious right' on it.
Well, unless you believe in the theory of virgin birth as applied to ordinary mortals as well as godlets, abstinence is a quite foolproof way of avoiding pregnancy, crabs, herpes, VD, AIDS, and other complicationss brought about through history by the magic connection.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
You're right, I misunderstood the link at the bottom of the page. However, to make up for it, I tracked a real link down:
http://www.sociology.columbia.edu/downloads/other/psb17/virginity.pdf
Also, my numbers were examples used to show my point, not actual numbers I got from the study, since the numbers in the study varied highly between groups.
And my use of the word 'conspiracy' was in reaction to the assertion that the the spin on this article in the NYT is an example of leftist leanings in the media.
Whatever the statistics, I admire the young people who have such reverence for their sexuality, for themselves, that they are saving themselves for the one man or woman to whom they wish to commit themselves totally in true, faithful love.
Tony,
The PDF you linked to is a study published in 2000, which includes only one reference to STDs (and none to "diseases") in 63 pages. While it may be part of the picture being summarized in the news stories, it can't be the whole thing. It doesn't provide information (that I saw in a scan of it) about where the sample was drawn from, nor does it appear to include the 99% and 88% stats that I find so questionable.
So thanks for tracking that down, it is interesting. But it doesn't answer my questions (not that that was necessarily your aim).
Arnold Harris- Well, technically not foolproof for the VDs, since some of them can be acquired through means other than sex. Of course, if you get AIDS through a tainted blood transfusion, I guess it ceases to be a VD, in your case.
Tony: Look up the word "bias" and then look up the word "conspiracy." See the difference? There's a huge one.
Scientific illiteracy is just as much a contributor here, of course.
I'd still like to see the actual published results from the actual study. I'm annoyed that to date none of the news reports has enough information to make it possible to find easily.
Steven Malcolm et al,
You sound like the lead young actor in a late 1930s Hollywood epic, on bended knee before the girl to whom he is proposing marriage, while her mother and father hide inside the house, smiling in approval and pretending they are not watching and listening. (You should have been a script writer.)
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Metaphysician,
Hopefully not in my case. I have neither VD nor TBTD (if that is what you prefer to tag it). And my wife hopes I keep it that way.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
First: You can't find the study because it isn't published yet. It is quite common for researchers to present their data at conferences while the articles are in pre-press. This helps them to fine tune the material so that they don't let any major mistakes through.
Second: The study does challenge the assumptions of abstinence only programs...which say that children will be BETTER OFF with abstinence only programs (not the same, or worse). Yes, the kids have roughly the same amount of STDs...but they are also less likely to know that they have them, therefor making them more likely to pass them on, and more likely to suffer from long term health effects. That to me says worse off.
Also...in your own spurious argument: "But why is it that I find it impossible to believe that kids who delay having sex by an average of 18 months, with 12% of them never having sex at all before marriage, are likely to be a group of kids who have a lower overall unwed teen pregnancy rate?"
Well, 88% break the pledge, but only 40% use condoms, giving 35% condom usage for 'pledges' vs.
99% break the pledge with 60%condom usage, or
59% condom usage for 'non-pledges'.
It would seems entirely possible that the pledgees might actually have greater rates of pregnancy...But this is spurious too, since no results were mentioned. Maybe it's not part of the research...who knows? But trying to conclude a result with no knowledge is fairly absurd...
More?
How is
"All the press accounts say that the kids who take the abstinence pledge wind up contracting STDs at almost--almost!--the same rate as kids who don't take it. Implication: there's probably a minor reduction."
more responsible than
"The researchers tested the participants for three common sexually transmitted infections — chlamydia, gonorrhea and trichomoniasis — and found that the rates were almost identical for the teenagers who took pledges and those who did not."
I mean seriously...who's doing the 'spinning' now?
Also:
It's true they note that it isn't mentioned what percentage of pledges break their pledge with their future spouse, but they do note:
That, "After they break their pledge, the gates are open, and they catch up," having more partners in a shorter time.
Hmmm...makes the point almost moot.
And also says something about this, too:
"The press accounts all acknowledge that kids who took the pledge delayed onset of sexual activity by an average of 18 months. This is a huge reduction."
Not that big if they are working overtime after they break the pledge.
I mean seriously, even the guy running the pledge program acknowledges that the study caused him concern.
Lastly, you seem to suggest that higher rates of early marriage are beneficial...but that is speculation at best. What if the kids are jumping into early marriages just for the sake of sex, and wind up unhappy or divorced at higher rates? I'm not saying this is the case, but I certianly wouldn't put a check in the 'pro' column without some solid numbers to back it up.
Any program, by itself, has no chance of 100% sucess. Abstinence is a great start as it is the only 100% way to avoid pregancy and 99.999% change to avoid STD.
I think that there is a program used in Africa to combat AIDS that combines abstinence with other methods.
It is the ABC program, abstinence, be faithful, use a condom. This would work well in High schools as well.
Patrick: you're still spinning yourself. The data clearly shows no significant difference in STD rates but that you're slighly less likely to get one if you take the pledge. It also clearly shows very substantial delay of onset of sexual activity.
Yes, the abstinence program advocates are "concerned." They should be. It indicates a need for modification of the programs--not the failure.
Where are you getting your data, by the way? Can you provide a link to it, please?
Arnold Harris:
Yes, I am that Romantic, and archaic, ultra-conservative, reactionary, "square". And I love _your_ style as well. The archetypal tough-minded realist. I think we complement each other in certain ways.
Very interesting discussion of the abstinence program. As a teen who would never have taken the pledge in the first place, it's interesting to see the arguments for a program that I don't particularly support, although the 12%/18 month argument is very persuasive. The numbers I would like to see specify how much of that 12% was swayed by the program itself as opposed to parents/peer groups/church etc....but on to constructive discussion instead of speculation.
My problem with abstinence programs is the all-or-nothing focus. For example, Choosingthebest.org describes a program that does not offer any alternatives. I think that Dave's item 3) on sex ed is the most important:
3) Teach them how to use the various birth control methods if they insist on having sex.
Programs that don't take into account the fact that teens who want to have sex will have sex leave people unprepared for the event in far too many ways. I think it's dangerous to ignore this, and this is why I'm not gung-ho about abstinence programs. I think abstinence is smart, but I know that teenagers are usually too dumb to recognize that.
In any case, I'm grateful for the chance to see a side of the story that I hadn't before.
"The data clearly shows no significant difference in STD rates but that you're slighly less likely to get one if you take the pledge."
It never says you are less likely if you take the pledge...you are the one who is presuming a reduction. It says the results were "almost identical." (I suspect that the results show statistical equality, which is why they can't make a statement one way or another.) And even though pledges contract STDs at the same rate, they are more likely to spread them and more likely to go untreated. That is not a positive outcome.
And yes, it does show substantial AVERAGE delay of onset of sexual activity, but most of that is due to the 12% who keep the pledge waiting many years. The average delay for the remaining 88% is probably a few months at most (can't tell for sure without more data, but a rough calc says 3mos). And these pledge breakers are much worse off than the people who never take the pledge, because pledge breakers have just as many partners but use condoms half the rate! Again, this is very bad outcome.
On reading the article again, though, I did however notice what seems to be a big problem: There is no connection mentioned between who took the pledge and what kind of sex-ed they had. If both populations were exposed to the same sex ed materials, than the results have no bearing on sex-ed at all...but would instead reflect cultural differences between the groups. (ie if you took the pledge AND were exposed to condom education, or if you took absinence only sex-ed, but didn't take the pledge.) I suspect this will be discussed within the research when it is published...but without it any judgements regarding what type of sex-ed is better are completely conjecture.
And please note: I am not opposed to emphasizing abstinence in sex-ed. It clearly works for the people who maintain it. But I believe that abstinence only is a very bad idea, since the vast majority of kids won't maintain it, and I think this article (and study) goes a long way towards demonstrating that.
Is it just me, or does this study say less than ya'll want it to? Correlation doesn't equal causation - kids who are willing to take a chastity pledge would seem to me to be more likely to avoid or delay having sex for other reasons.
Also, statistically "The data clearly shows no significant difference in STD rates but that you're slighly less likely to get one if you take the pledge" makes absolutely no sense. If there is no significant difference, then you can say that in this study one group had fewer STDs than another but you can't use that as evidence to generalize to other groups.
I'd like to chime in, if I may.
As a single, Christian man, I agree with your point that waiting until you are 30 to get married is generally not a good idea, unless you believe you are called to be single the rest of your life.
We have a strong desire in us called our sex drive. Ignoring reality is bad. We were made to be joined in marriage with the opposite sex, and should not wait.
Great essay, Dean.
What's really needed to promote happy lives, whether single or married:
1. Quality, affordable mental health services (private, so that each one could state up front its values orientation).
2. Quality, affordable education (see #1).
3. Better-publicized sources of information on home-based businesses, so that young mothers could keep their careers, intellects, and social lives going, and make money, too.
4. More Venus & Mars info in professional human services training. You can't keep your dog happy by treating it like a cat. You can't keep a husband happy by treating him like a wife.