The Abstinence Clearinghouse is so “unconcerned� about a new study reporting that virginity pledges are ineffective that they’ve put out a preemptive press release.
"A paper by Harvard student Janet Rosenbaum released this week...gives health advocates no useful information in helping youth choose healthy behaviors."
(Healthy=hymen, in this case.)
In the yet-to-be-released June 2006 issue of the American Journal of Public Health, Rosenbaum--a Ph.D. candidate at Harvard’s Program on Health Policy--found that virginity pledges were a big ole waste of time.
Five years after taking a virginity pledge, most virginity pledgers fail to report having pledged. Virginity pledges do not affect the incidence of self-reported pre-marital sex or assay-determined chlamydia.
The Abstinence Clearinghouse takes issue with the findings (wonder why) and says that in addition to Rosenbaum’s “less than scientific� method, the study’s results are marred by “the questionable answers of the survey's respondents.� And by questionable, the Clearinghouse means that they owned up to having pre-marital sex. Which just can’t be right.
UPDATE: Here's the abstract, you have to pay for a complete pdf of the report.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Pay no attention to the scientist behind the curtain.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/3212
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
quelle fucking surprise.
Yeah very lame, abstinence is unnatural.
Being horny all the time must make you more easily brainwashed or something.
When god is the only one you are allowed to love, I guess you take it.
An adult's desire to fuck is as natural and uncontrollable as a child's desire to pee on the floor.
I haven't been able to get my hands on the full report yet but the abstract had one very interesting a frightening finding cited. In the conclusion it said "virginity pledgers may incorrectly assess the sexually transmitted disease risks associated with their prepledge sexual behavior." Thus virginity pledges give individual a false sense of security about pre-pledge behavior, thus putting themselves and their future partners at risk. This reminds me in some ways of the potential AIDS risk associated with men on the DL, although the sociological factors of the situation is very different. However, this study would seem to indicate that people are being put at risk for infection because their partners have had their assesment of their own risk taking behavior obfuscated by virginity pledges. If this is accurate these pledges are a public health threat and putting innocent individuals at risk. I need to review the study, but if this is the case, these organizations are hurting youth in more ways than the obvious ones.
"Pay no attention to the scientist behind the curtain"
Hmmmm?
http://feministing.com/archives/002424.html
At this early stage, evaluations of abstinence programs are inconclusive at best. For example, the Mathematica study making similar claims was based on a flawed study design that evaluated children too young and with no follow up. Read the Rosenbaum abstract, a simple study in cognitive dissonance with an obvious sample selection problem.
Comprehensive sex education is not values based. Yet, sex involves values — commitment, love and intimacy. If values are omitted, the teaching implies that casual teen sex has no lasting consequences as long as the teens use a condom. This flies in the face of skyrocking STD rates, depression, and other health indicators.
Got a better idea?