I saw a tv news magazine show featuring a purity ring ceremony. It was a little creepy watching young girls in formal wear dancing and dining with their fathers before they approached a cross for the ceremony where vows were made and the ring given to the girl.

The whole thing looked creepy and vaguely incestuous.

Evidence is mounting that the abstinence programs promoted by many churches and social conservatives just don't work.

Here's some more on the subject.

Teenagers who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are just as likely to have premarital sex as those who do not promise abstinence and are significantly less likely to use condoms and other forms of birth control when they do, according to a study released today.

The new analysis of data from a large federal survey found that more than half of youths became sexually active before marriage regardless of whether they had taken a "virginity pledge," but that the percentage who took precautions against pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases was 10 points lower for pledgers than for non-pledgers.

"Taking a pledge doesn't seem to make any difference at all in any sexual behavior," said Janet E. Rosenbaum of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, whose report appears in the January issue of the journal Pediatrics. "But it does seem to make a difference in condom use and other forms of birth control that is quite striking."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By 2001, Rosenbaum found, 82 percent of those who had taken a pledge had retracted their promises, and there was no significant difference in the proportion of students in both groups who had engaged in any type of sexual activity, including giving or receiving oral sex, vaginal intercourse, the age at which they first had sex, or their number of sexual partners. More than half of both groups had engaged in various types of sexual activity, had an average of about three sexual partners and had had sex for the first time by age 21 even if they were unmarried.

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

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

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

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

But Huber disputed that charge.

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

I was a Virgin when I got married...but never felt the need to openly proclaim that promise of self respect to the world at the time...I made the decision in the first place not out of ignorance in fact it was the total opposite...I made a fully informed choice

I hope I still live my life to those same ethics these days...but it gets increasingly difficult when people simply keep too many secrets...I think that's why we like honesty and openness it gives us a choice at least.

And isn't that what its all about? Freedom of choice?

sadly..." freedom of choice "...in the last 15 years or so...is very much selective in it's application...is there really " freedom of choice "...when it comes to smoking ?...although I don't smoke...what the federal and state government has done...when it comes to smoking can hardly be considered " freedom of choice "...if that were the case...then the law would be as simple as...posting a sign on the front door of every establishment that states " This is a Smoking Establishment "...so the people could then use their " Freedom of Choice "...what ever happened to private property rights in this country ?...ohhhhhhhhhhhhh for the 50's...

It would be interesting to see who published this "research" it would also be interesting to see if it was peer reviewed.

Abstinence works...everytime it's tried...

Im for abstinence to but the school programs that promote it are stupid and counterproductive. Some crap a bunch of religious nuts come up with.

oh for the 50s

I posted a Texas story on another thread about a major city, I think it was Dallas, that was reexamining it's ban on condom distribution and the abstinence approach.

Teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases are again on the rise.

Please...what is wrong with informed choice?

Not educating or discussing sex and expecting teens to make responsible choices is abit like never not offering drivers education and simply handing them the keys at 18. Assuming that they wait that long.

I see your point of view on this...but...once again...where's the Freedom of Choice ?...I posted an article a few weeks ago about " Taking Sides "...basicly it's about whenever the government...courts...or ...politicians get involved and pass laws...what then follows...is the agrguing...people at each other's throats...we witness it everyday on this board...the example that was used in the article was this..." we have rock n roll music, and we have opera music...both sides are free to listen to the music that they like...everybody is happy and they get along just fine "...now...lets say the government came along and outlawed rock n roll music...starting monday there will be NO MORE rock n roll music...what would happen ?...the opera lovers would still be happy...listening to their music...but...the rock n rollers...would be livid...angry...without their music...they would be forced to take sides...why ?...because the government, not the people made the choice for them...hardly Freedom of Choice...when you look back...at some of the wedge issues that keep both sides at each others throats...you will see that the judges...the politicians...and...the government...made the choice for you...and...we allow it to keep on happening...slowly...but...surely...day after day...

Actually a higher teen pregnancy rate in the fifty's

The federal government is not supposed to be involved in education. The Constitution does not give the Federal government permission to get involved in this sort of thing. It is supposed to be a State and local government issue.

However, if the government is going to promote sex ed, it should include the use of the most effective abstinence programs.

Just as sex ed programs in general vary in their effectiveness, so to do abstinence programs have different rates of success.

So sure, I believe in teaching abstinence first.

But...and this is a big but..you have to provide factual evidence about why this is the first best choice for your people.

I am 100% in support of showing children the down side of sexual behavior. Pregnancy, lower educational and financial success, std's, and even death. And make no mistake when I say show them I mean just that. I very much support school programs that make young couples parents with interactive dolls and family budgets for instance.

Information empowers!!

It sort of makes me laugh that not long ago I posted here about the pregnant Palin kid. There was a barrage of that's private from a segment of posters on this board but the republicans didn't make it private. There she stood on the stage. In interviews with delegates on the floor you heard many repeat the sentiment that gee...this happens...at least she's getting married, it happens in the best of families and so on.

SO much for saying no eh? Essentially many conservative republicans were forced to not only support unwed teen pregnancy they were also saying...teaching abstinence might not be working and that no matter what you hope your children might do...well gosh they do as they please.

So,let's at least make sure they know the facts and that they can protect themselves. The wages of a teen age mistake should not be death.

Since I was not at the republican convention I do not know what was said by the rank and file.

One of the reasons that Bristol's pregnancy was announced is that the media had been running stories for days claiming that trig was really the child of Bristol Palin. Also it was obvious that the media were going to discover Bristol's pregnancy, since it was not a secret in Alaska. It is better to announce something like that, than have the media claim that Sarah was trying to keep it a secret.

Also, Bristol went through the regular sex ed classes in Alaska, not just abstinence only programs. Although the media was eager to spread lies and claim that she only had abstinence education and that Sarah Palin opposed sex ed.

Sarah Palin did not stick her family into the public eye any more than Barack Obama did, yet the media went into a frenzied attack against her family and every minor little aspect of their life.

The sad thing is that the media reported more lies about the Palin family in the first two weeks of her campaign than they reported about Obama's family in his entire two year campaign.

Personally I would rather that both families be left out of politics, but apparently I am a tiny minority in that opinion.

Nice...don't address the issue..

Don't talk about Sarah and her brood...oh wait yes do...

You may want to but it's just a little end run from realty. Why did I mention it? Because it's the nearly perfect illustration of the failure of just say no thinking.

If you think that was the only reason the kids pregnancy was mentioned you must be very very young or perhaps you have lived an insulated life.

Perhaps you should review the stance of the republican party over the last thirty years in both it's party planks and it's legislative record. I think I am safe to say teen pregnancy wasn't something that was embraced.

As for your reply...

Fine with me that you don't address the issue and the shift in the stance and the public face of the republican publicity machine.

Sticking to old illusions, disseminating rumors and misinformation, ignoring reality, feeding sheeple, attempting to shift focus, calling names and if all else fails calling it private (this isn't new to the pregnancy of Palin's child) are all old tactics.

This isn't about your false idol Sarah.

It's about providing children with the support of family, friends, church and community. With giving them the facts and tools to make informed and intelligent decisions.

Politics doesn't mean a piss in the wind when a young man and woman are alone and exploring those first passionate moments (and you know they do you were young once)but..if they have the facts they might think and perhaps postpone intimacy.

I remember the "bad girl" schools in the 50's, 60's, and 70's.
That's where they hid the pregnant girls. There was a big complex when I was in grade school. I would climb the brick wall and see the girls. The buildings are all torn down now and it's a shopping area.

Part of the higher rate was because limited birth control, condoms, no pills
Another reason, women married younger too.

Hmmm...I never thought about that before. You're right.
I do remember that girls went to "visit" a relative for a long time.

Then all of a sudden they had a baby sister/brother.

Or...they came back with no child.

Too much to quote Winx.


Yes that too.