Posted on 03/18/2005 1:45:07 PM PST by Crackingham
Teens who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are more likely to take chances with other kinds of sex that increase the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, a study of 12,000 adolescents suggests. The report by Yale and Columbia University researchers could help explain their earlier findings that teens who pledged abstinence are just as likely to have STDs as their peers.
The latest study, published in the April issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health, found that teens pledging virginity until marriage are more likely to have oral and anal sex than other teens who have not had intercourse. That behavior, however, "puts you at risk," said Hannah Brueckner, assistant professor of sociology at Yale and one of the study's authors.
Among virgins, boys who have pledged abstinence were four times more likely to have had anal sex, according to the study. Overall, pledgers were six times more likely to have oral sex than teens who have remained abstinent but not as part of a pledge. The pledging group was also less likely to use condoms during their first sexual experience or get tested for STDs, the researchers found.
Data for the study was taken from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. An in-school questionnaire was given to a nationally representative sample of students in grades 7-12 and followed up with a series of in-home interviews roughly one, two, and six years later. It was funded in part by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Leslee Unruh, president of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse in Sioux Falls, S.D., called the study "bogus," disputing that those involved had pledged true "abstinence."
"Kids who pledge abstinence are taught that any word that has 'sex' in it is considered a sexual activity," Unruh said. "Therefore oral sex is sex, and they are staying away."
This is BS, and they knew it so they buried it.
They didn’t compare abstinence pledgers to non-pledgers. They compared pledgers to everyone else who didn’t get laid. BIG SHOCK! Those that didn’t get laid also had less anal and oral sex!
For this to be a valid comparison, they’d have to assume that pledgers would not have had sex even if they didn’t pledge. That’s not the case. They should have been compared to the total population their age.
I’m not even for strict abstinence. I think it’s a waste of young peoples' potential pleasure at the prime of their chance to enjoy and give it.. But this study's total crap. And since they tried to obscure that it, it’s also a fraud.
Obviously, any sexual act outside of marriage is a result of lust. I think you are missing my point. The verse you cited was about lust, not the actiully physical acts.
Ewwww.....
But - assuming all acts are 'unprotected' - you can get AIDS just as easily with regular....ya know I just realized I was writing under the assumption that "anal= male + male" only?
AND...well I was going to make another point but I'm getting grossed out.....
I think they are referring to anal sex as an alternative to vaginal which does carry additional health risks. The fact that kids could do any of it and consider themselves virgins is what's beyond me.
Lingering Under Sexual Temptation
Hopefully it's part of most all sexual acts inside marriage as well ;^)
Lust is obviously a central part of it, but I loved a couple of women that I had sex with outside of marriage, and I’m sure they loved me. Young people in our complex society with all its opportunities often, but not always, grow apart.
Good definition in that context.
Bottom line, pledgers lie. Why not just compare abstinence to non-abstinence? Weird study.
Modern Liberalism.
The thing that is horrible to me is that they sent surveys to kids in 7th grade. If it really wasn't something they thought of before they sure will now. Unbelievable. The questionaire basically plants the idea that these other things are options.
Daniel 5:28: PERES: Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.
Depends upon how you define "gay sex". A couple of lesbians are less likely to engage in anal sex than a heterosexual couple; does this make "heterosexual sex" more risky? If anal sex with a condom is less risky than vaginal sex without; does that make vaginal sex more risky?
Some gay men think that it is heterosexual men who are obsessed with anal sex, because the "coin of the realm" in their weird little world is the blowjob. To which I say "Don't play coy you little bitch! I know you are an ass bandit!" JUST KIDDING!
Isn't it though? lol.. they aren't really abstaining period!
You want to feel her up.
You plan on feeling her up.
You take her on a date to feel her up.
You feel her up.
You don't feel bad about feeling her up.
That's five sins just for one feel.
I know, I was abstinant for seventeen years once (it sucked). I was willing to do just about ANYTHING to end it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.