From the "Can't make this Shit up" Category...

[Abbey Normal]

Although young people who sign a virginity pledge delay the initiation of sexual activity, marry at younger ages and have fewer sexual partners they are also less likely to use condoms and more likely to experiment with oral and anal sex, said the researchers from Yale and Columbia universities.

Gotta love how the bolded section was written so passively as to make it appear unimportant by comparison. IMO, that one sentence is a huge acknowledgment of the value of such pledges.

 

[Dr Grump]

Gotta love how the bolded section was written so passively as to make it appear unimportant by comparison. IMO, that one sentence is a huge acknowledgment of the value of such pledges.

And the unbolded part of the same sentence isn't important?

 

[Abbey Normal]

And the unbolded part of the same sentence isn't important?

The entire article was one big tribute to the importance of the unbolded part, while it tried to minimize to the point of oblivion the incredible importance of the bolded part.

One can imagine the author sitting at the keyboard, thinking:

"Dang, I have this incontrovertible evidence that virginity plegdes result in lower pregnancy rates and fewer sexual partners. How can I downplay it so that they (pledges) look like they don't work?" Oh, I know, I'll bury it in an "Although" sentence, surround it with umpteen paragrahs about STD's, and maybe no one will notice."

But I did notice. Agenda-driven writing is really pretty easy to spot.

 

[jillian]

Although I think it would be ideal if parents would teach their own children about sex and morals, I wasn't arguing mutual exclusivity. It seems to me that it is those who are strongly pro Sex Ed., to the point of handing out condoms, etc., who love to continually argue that abstinence doesn't work. As we have seen right in this thread.

Seems to me we've never discussed handing out condoms. So while you might be right that I would approve of that, you might not be. You haven't asked. Although might be better to make sure a kid has a condom than not.

And it's been proven that abstinence only doesn't work..... It was only the virginity pledge that cut down on unwanted pregnancy. That is a separate catagory from those who have had abstinence-only training. But these kids are getting STD's from anal and oral sex. Doesn't sound articularly "abstinent" to me. It does sound like their view of what sex is has nothing to do with a healthy sex life, but is some bizarre accommodation to their "pledge".

BTW, by bolding the part about pregnacy and leaving out the part about the STD's, you change the meaning of the articles to suit *your* agenda. So while the articles may have a particular perspective, yours is no less "agenda-based". In fact, the articles seem to be fact-based.

 

[Bonnie]

If people were abstaining, there wouldn't be so many single mothers around. Abstinence only training has been proven to be ineffectual.

Problem is abstinence is not even part of any sex education, (Planned prenthood and NARAL make sure of that) but everything else is.

 

[jillian]

Problem is abstinence is not even part of any sex education, (Planned prenthood and NARAL make sure of that) but everything else is.

If that's the case, you would be absolutely correct, because that would be a wrong-minded approach, too. Kids should always know that abstinence is the only 100% sure way to avoid pregnancy and STD's. But I don't believe that's accurate. My understanding of the position of NARAL and Planned Parenthood is that it should be included, but not be the exclusive focus. (Admittedly, I might have missed something on the subject).

 

[jillian]

It didn't help. Face it. The atheist liberal view point on sex is hey, the goofy kids are all going to be banging each other anyway, so lets tell them all how to do it and pass out free condoms.

Confusing "liberalism", which if I read you correctly, is pretty much anyone from center to left, with "atheism" is a mistake. Most of this country believes in a deity, but only about a third of the country is way to the right.

Most of the U.S. tends to be somewhere just left or just right of center. And I can only speak for my own viewpoint which is that they DO mess around anyway, so to avoid educating them about diseases or unwanted pregnancies which can ruin their lives and how best to avoid them IF they aren't abstinent, is kind of putting our heads in the sand.

The Christian conservative view point is just the opposite. But when you have to fight the godless liberals who run the education system, the task can be dauntless.

See...I know what the Christian Conservative point of view is. And Christian Conservatives have every right to pursue their religion in their homes, Churches and parochial schools, they have no such right to impose their religioius viewpoint on everyone else.

Again, liberalism and "godlessness" can't and shouldn't be equated.

But you get points for honesty.

 

[Dr Grump]

The entire article was one big tribute to the importance of the unbolded part, while it tried to minimize to the point of oblivion the incredible importance of the bolded part.

One can imagine the author sitting at the keyboard, thinking:

"Dang, I have this incontrovertible evidence that virginity plegdes result in lower pregnancy rates and fewer sexual partners. How can I downplay it so that they (pledges) look like they don't work?" Oh, I know, I'll bury it in an "Although" sentence, surround it with umpteen paragrahs about STD's, and maybe no one will notice."

But I did notice. Agenda-driven writing is really pretty easy to spot.

There was nothing in your original quote that I answered about lower pregnancy rates.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Seems to me we've never discussed handing out condoms. So while you might be right that I would approve of that, you might not be. You haven't asked. Although might be better to make sure a kid has a condom than not.

And it's been proven that abstinence only doesn't work..... It was only the virginity pledge that cut down on unwanted pregnancy. That is a separate catagory from those who have had abstinence-only training. But these kids are getting STD's from anal and oral sex. Doesn't sound articularly "abstinent" to me. It does sound like their view of what sex is has nothing to do with a healthy sex life, but is some bizarre accommodation to their "pledge".

BTW, by bolding the part about pregnacy and leaving out the part about the STD's, you change the meaning of the articles to suit *your* agenda. So while the articles may have a particular perspective, yours is no less "agenda-based". In fact, the articles seem to be fact-based.

You were the one who introduced an entire article on virginity pledges to the thread, not me. To now treat it as an irrelevant separate category because it does not support your view as you had hoped, is not logical or fair.

It is fascinating to me that you can continually ignore that part that says virginity pledges reduce pregnancy and number of sexual partners** Are those things insignificant to you? I can assure you they are quite significant to most people, especially the teens themselves.

As for my bolding the part about pledges, that was to point out the article's agenda, not make one. To emphasize what the author had de-empasized. Can you really not see the difference?

As for your opinion that kids with virginity pledges have made a "bizarre accomodation", I am willing to bet that pledge-less kids having intercourse (and getting pregnant, and getting STD's, and spreading them around more due to their larger number of partners) ) are having oral sex as well. So where is the downside for those who pledge?

** bolding added for emphasis

 

[Annie]

You were the one who introduced an entire article on virginity pledges to the thread, not me. To now treat it as an irrelevant separate category because it does not support your view as you had hoped, is not logical or fair.

It is fascinating to me that you can continually ignore that part that says virginity pledges reduce pregnancy and number of sexual partners** Are those things insignificant to you? I can assure you they are quite significant to most people, especially the teens themselves.

As for my bolding the part about pledges, that was to point out the article's agenda, not make one. To emphasize what the author had de-empasized. Can you really not see the difference?

As for your opinion that kids with virginity pledges have made a "bizarre accomodation", I am willing to bet that pledge-less kids having intercourse (and getting pregnant, and getting STD's, and spreading them around more due to their larger number of partners) ) are having oral sex as well. So where is the downside for those who pledge?

** bolding added for emphasis

I'm jumping in having just read the last post, by Abbey. I read about the 'long term ineffectiveness of virginity pledges' this morning. My kids signed up for this in high school, so did most of their friends. Of those that did, none I know of became pregnant during high school or college, so far. While my kids are all 20 and over now, I'm pretty sure only the youngest has 'kept the pledge' but I do know they are all very cognizant of not 'sleeping around.' They talk about how gross that some do so.

I wonder if they'd have felt the same, if they'd started having sex in high school? That in and of itself makes it a good thing.

 

[jillian]

You were the one who introduced an entire article on virginity pledges to the thread, not me. To now treat it as an irrelevant separate category because it does not support your view as you had hoped, is not logical or fair.

They are separate issues arising out of the same subject matter. Kids taking the "virginity pledge" are one group of kids. Those taught "abstinence only" education...which was the original point we were discussing is a different group of teens, though the first might (and I say "might" because it wasn't covered in the articles) be a subset of the second group.

It is fascinating to me that you can continually ignore that part that says virginity pledges reduce pregnancy and number of sexual partners** Are those things insignificant to you? I can assure you they are quite significant to most people, especially the teens themselves.

And it's not significant to them when they get STD's from anal sex? You think having them engage in anal sex is a way for them to learn a healthy sex life? Or do you think it distorts their view of it? I think it distorts their view of sex.

As for my bolding the part about pledges, that was to point out the article's agenda, not make one. To emphasize what the author had de-empasized. Can you really not see the difference?

What I saw was you substituting your own agenda. That's fair. But to try to indicate that you did not have your own agenda is less than candid.

As for your opinion that kids with virginity pledges have made a "bizarre accomodation", I am willing to bet that pledge-less kids having intercourse (and getting pregnant, and getting STD's, and spreading them around more due to their larger number of partners) ) are having oral sex as well. So where is the downside for those who pledge?

The article is very clear that these "virginity pledge" kids have a higher rate of STD's. That makes sense given that both anal sex and unprotected oral sex are high risk behaviors. *That's* the downside. STD's are the gift that keeps on giving, aren't they? Not to mention the screwed up view of sex these kids have if their first sexual experiences are anal sex.

** bolding added for emphasis

Heh!

 

[jillian]

I'm jumping in having just read the last post, by Abbey. I read about the 'long term ineffectiveness of virginity pledges' this morning. My kids signed up for this in high school, so did most of their friends. Of those that did, none I know of became pregnant during high school or college, so far. While my kids are all 20 and over now, I'm pretty sure only the youngest has 'kept the pledge' but I do know they are all very cognizant of not 'sleeping around.' They talk about how gross that some do so.

I wonder if they'd have felt the same, if they'd started having sex in high school? That in and of itself makes it a good thing.

Good for you. Sounds like you taught your kids to have high self-esteem. I found even when I was growing up that the girls who placed a higher value on themselves had sex with fewer partners. Just seemed that such people valued themselves too much to give themselves cheaply.

And ultimately, virginity pledge or no virginity pledge, if you gave your kids that gift, they'd have still been cognizant of their own value.

 

[Abbey Normal]

...
What I saw was you substituting your own agenda. That's fair. But to try to indicate that you did not have your own agenda is less than candid.
...

Rather an ironic ding coming from the person who posted the agenda-driven article in the first place. If you are going to post such an article, you should be able to handle criticism of it, without resorting to diversionary jabs to the person who gave the criticism.

By now the point-by-point replies are getting redundant, so I will leave it at that. I do want to thank you very much for posting the article, as I was heretofore unaware of the great results that virginity pledges were producing!

 

[jillian]

Rather an ironic ding coming from the person who posted the agenda-driven article in the first place. If you are going to post such an article, you should be able to handle criticism of it, without resorting to diversionary jabs to the person who gave the criticism.

Pretty good... the ole, if you have the facts, pound on the facts; if you have the law; pound on the law; if you have neither, pound on the table.

You do a good job pounding on the table. Heh! But again...you didn't criticize the articles. In fact, you haven't disputed a single fact in them. You just tried to distort those facts. But s'cool...

By now the point-by-point replies are getting redundant, so I will leave it at that. I do want to thank you very much for posting the article, as I was heretofore unaware of the great results that virginity pledges were producing!

You think that if they're having anal sex they're still virgins?

 

[Annie]

Good for you. Sounds like you taught your kids to have high self-esteem. I found even when I was growing up that the girls who placed a higher value on themselves had sex with fewer partners. Just seemed that such people valued themselves too much to give themselves cheaply.

And ultimately, virginity pledge or no virginity pledge, if you gave your kids that gift, they'd have still been cognizant of their own value.

Jillian, no one can 'teach' kids self-esteem. It is something earned through successful accomplishment of goals set and met by the individual. The whole 'given' self-esteem is a false god.

The most anyone can do for another is to set an example of making goals and objectives and following through. If significant adults do not help children do this when young, starting about the age of 2 and providing more and more opportunities as they mature, they would not only be unprepared for such a pledge at 14, 15, or 16, they wouldn't have a clue on how to form and follow a personal set of morals with or without such a pledge.

It used to be called self-discipline.

 

[jillian]

Jillian, no one can 'teach' kids self-esteem. It is something earned through successful accomplishment of goals set and met by the individual. The whole 'given' self-esteem is a false god.

The most anyone can do for another is to set an example of making goals and objectives and following through. If significant adults do not help children do this when young, starting about the age of 2 and providing more and more opportunities as they mature, they would not only be unprepared for such a pledge at 14, 15, or 16, they wouldn't have a clue on how to form and follow a personal set of morals with or without such a pledge.

It used to be called self-discipline.

I think perhaps we're talking about similar things but using different words. When I talk about "self-esteem" I'm not talking about the garbage of everyone being told they're wonderful no matter what they do. I'm talking about encouraging them to work hard, succeed and feel proud of themselves. Kids who have that place a higher value on themselves. You call it discipline. I called it self-esteem. But either way, for someone to be capable of that, they have to think they are valuable....at least I think so.

 

[Annie]

I think perhaps we're talking about similar things but using different words. When I talk about "self-esteem" I'm not talking about the garbage of everyone being told they're wonderful no matter what they do. I'm talking about encouraging them to work hard, succeed and feel proud of themselves. Kids who have that place a higher value on themselves. You call it discipline. I called it self-esteem. But either way, for someone to be capable of that, they have to think they are valuable....at least I think so.

Either way, it's not 'taught' or 'given', it's earned.

 

[jillian]

Either way, it's not 'taught' or 'given', it's earned.

I'll agree to disagree with you on this one.