PDA

View Full Version : Study Examines STD Rates of Teen Virgins


Pepper
03-09-2004, 06:21 PM
By JASON STRAZIUSO, Associated Press Writer

PHILADELPHIA - Teens who make a one-time pledge to remain virgins until marriage catch sexually transmitted diseases about as often as those who don't pledge abstinence, according to a study of the sex lives of 12,000 adolescents.

Those who make a public pledge to delay sex also wind up having fewer sex partners and get married earlier, the research shows. But the two groups' STD rates were statistically similar.

One of the problems, researchers found, is that virginity "pledgers" are less likely to use condoms.

"It's difficult to simultaneously prepare for sex and say you're not going to have sex," said Peter Bearman, chairman of Columbia University's sociology department, who co-authored the study with Hannah Bruckner of Yale University.

"The message is really simple: 'Just say no' may work in the short term but doesn't work in the long term."

Data from the study, presented Tuesday at the National STD Prevention Conference, was taken from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. That study was funded in part by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (news - web sites).

The analysis also found that in communities where at least 20 percent of adolescents pledged to remain virgins, the STD rates for everyone combined was 8.9 percent. In communities with fewer than 7 percent pledgers, the STD rate was 5.5 percent.

"It is the combination of hidden sex and unsafe sex that creates a world where people underestimate the risk of STDs," Bearman said.

Critics of abstinence-only education saw the findings as evidence that adolescents benefit from sex education.

"It's a tragedy if we withhold from these kids information about how not to get STDs or not to get pregnant," said Dorothy Mann, executive director of the Family Planning Council, an organization dedicated to reproductive health services.

But Pat Fagan, who researches family and cultural issues at the Heritage Foundation, cautioned that one-time pledges were different from abstinence-only education, which he said takes years of support and education. He noted that the virginity pledges delayed sex and led to fewer partners.

"It shows the power of the pledges by themselves," he said. "It also shows that alone, a one-time pledge is not enough. Anyone connected with the abstinence movement would never say it's enough."

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.

Bearman said the differences were not statistically significant. Overall rates combining all races wouldn't be valid, he said.

Donald Orr, director of adolescent medicine at Indiana University, said he hopes the study helps move sex education from a morality issue to a public health discussion.

"An environment where the only protection is not having sex creates the view that your risk for getting an STD is very low, and obviously it isn't," Orr said.

The study's other findings:

_59 percent of males who did not pledge abstinence used a condom during sex; only 40 percent of male pledgers used a condom.

_28 percent of female non-pledgers were tested for STDs in the previous year, compared to 14 percent of female pledgers.

_99 percent of non-pledgers and 88 percent of pledgers have sex before marriage.

DrewM
03-09-2004, 07:09 PM
God bless those sweet virgin whores :hula:

LionelHutz
03-09-2004, 09:34 PM
It'd be nice if your average conservative would learn something from this, but many prefer to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that everyone waits until marriage.

Travh20
03-10-2004, 10:29 AM
ah yes, another "study" aimed at making abstanance look stupid. why is teaching abstanence so bad? the liberals freak if you even mention it, yet have no qualms about teaching 6th graders to put condoms on cucumbers with their teeth. it does nto hurt to say taht abstenence is the only proven method of birth and disease control when you are doing the sex education. just slip it in there between condom on the cucumber contests and way to pleasure your same sex partner you re teaching to 6th graders. I do not disagree with teaching kids about safe sex, but I also think that it is not out of line to tell them abstanence is also an option.

DrewM
03-10-2004, 11:08 AM
Abstinence education is worthwhile - but it pretty much falls on deaf ears. The data in the study backs that up. Better to be realistic and focus on safe sex education.

Leper
03-10-2004, 12:12 PM
It's the parents' jurisdiction to decide how their children are educated about sex. Government should stay out of it all together.

DrewM
03-10-2004, 12:14 PM
Actually - Leper is right - I agree with that 100%

Pepper
03-10-2004, 01:47 PM
I wouldn't trust parents to give an honest discussion on sex. It was rare in my household as a child. And when are they going to have the time? I imagine many parents don't even know how sexually active their children are.

When STD rates, and pregnancy rates increase it effects society as a whole. Government (by the people for the people) do have an obligation in providing comprehensive sexual education (including abstinence). I would rather it be consistant and available to everyone then leave it to parents who may or may not address the issue honestly.

Sexuality is a health issue, not a morality issue.

Leper
03-11-2004, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Pepper
I wouldn't trust parents to give an honest discussion on sex. It was rare in my household as a child. And when are they going to have the time? I imagine many parents don't even know how sexually active their children are.

When STD rates, and pregnancy rates increase it effects society as a whole. Government (by the people for the people) do have an obligation in providing comprehensive sexual education (including abstinence). I would rather it be consistant and available to everyone then leave it to parents who may or may not address the issue honestly.

Sexuality is a health issue, not a morality issue.

Geez, what is with these people who want government to run their lives for them!

BorgHunter
03-11-2004, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by Leper
Geez, what is with these people who want government to run their lives for them!
Some of them are horrible parents.

Some of them had horrible parents, and thus think the government should intervene.

Some of them are communist.

The rest are just lazy.

LionelHutz
03-11-2004, 06:12 PM
After all the entire purpose of school is to teach your kids stuff that parents don't. So I don't have an issue with the schools discussing sex and protecting themselves. As long as they keep the discussion in the realm of health and stay away from the morality issues - that I think is strictly for the parents.

Travh20
03-11-2004, 06:23 PM
so your cool with schools teaching S&M, gay oral sex, anal sex, and masturbation techniques, but abstinence is way over the line?

DrewM
03-11-2004, 06:45 PM
I'm not ok with schools teaching S&M, gay oral sex, anal sex.

The birds & the bee's is what they should teach as part of the Biology lessons & that's it.

Pepper
03-11-2004, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by Leper
Geez, what is with these people who want government to run their lives for them! '

How is the government running lives by teaching people about their sexuality? Any more then running people's lives by teaching biology?


I see this as a way to empower the individual to make decisions on their own, with all the knowledge available through an impartial entity. (I may be a little idealistic in the impartial part)

How was your conversations with your parents about sex?

WhammyBar
03-11-2004, 08:54 PM
Abstinence only education won't work. teenagers, and younger, need to be told all of the facts, including that abstinence is the only full proof method of protection. it's important that it's taught in schools, because not everyone will et the proper information at home. what shouldn't be tauhgt is anything beyond health issues. no school should be telling kids about different sexual techniques, just the biological scientific facts.

LionelHutz
03-11-2004, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by Travh20
so your cool with schools teaching S&M, gay oral sex, anal sex, and masturbation techniques, but abstinence is way over the line?

Who said that? Schools should absolutely teach abstinence because it's clearly the safest way. But you have to be realistic too. A heck of a lot of kids won't be abstinent, and if you don't teach them how to protect themselves they'll pick up STDs. Hell, a lot of them are picking up STDs from oral sex because they're think they're abstaining and they think they can't get them from oral sex.

As upset as I'd be if I found out my daughter was having sex while living under my roof I'd be even more upset if she picked up some disease that she has to live with for the rest of her life.

Travh20
03-11-2004, 09:57 PM
I agree hutz. safe sex should be taught too. I also have a one year old daughter, so i feel your pain, LOL

neuromed07
03-12-2004, 02:07 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Travh20
[B]ah yes, another "study" aimed at making abstanance look stupid. why is teaching abstanence so bad?

This study doesn't make abstinence look "stupid." It is normative. It merely states the effects of this type of education. Abstinence is the most effective form of birth control and the most effective prevention method of STDs. However, studies are clear that abstinence education is not accepted by the majority of teens. Discussing it as an option is an imperative. Discussing it to the exclusion of safe-sex alternatives is a disaster.