-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God's Preoccupation With Fornication
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
@KenS, yes there were multiple studies. They do not appear to support your claims. Are you merely reading headlines? It is more likely that you copied and pasted from a supposedly Christian source. I used the word "supposedly" since Christian sources do not seem to have problem with more than stretching the truth at times.
If you say so.
We know that secular studied NEVER stretch the truth or outright lie.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You are not paying attention. What you claim does not appear to be in those studies.
Yes, I am aware of this study too made by "animal physiology" Dr Stranger-Hall. Strange but hey.Don't know where you got your "Virginity Pledge Program" quote from, although it may have come from the conservative Heritage Foundation, which likes to push virginity pledges, but following your researchgate.net/publication. link I came across this much more recent article.
From the NCBI, (National Center for Biotechnology Information) An agency of the federal government.
"The United States ranks first among developed nations in rates of both teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. In an effort to reduce these rates, the U.S. government has funded abstinence-only sex education programs for more than a decade. However, a public controversy remains over whether this investment has been successful and whether these programs should be continued. Using the most recent national data (2005) from all U.S. states with information on sex education laws or policies (N = 48), we show that increasing emphasis on abstinence education is positively correlated with teenage pregnancy and birth rates. This trend remains significant after accounting for socioeconomic status, teen educational attainment, ethnic composition of the teen population, and availability of Medicaid waivers for family planning services in each state. These data show clearly that abstinence-only education as a state policy is ineffective in preventing teenage pregnancy and may actually be contributing to the high teenage pregnancy rates in the U.S. In alignment with the new evidence-based Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative and the Precaution Adoption Process Model advocated by the National Institutes of Health, we propose the integration of comprehensive sex and STD education into the biology curriculum in middle and high school science classes and a parallel social studies curriculum that addresses risk-aversion behaviors and planning for the future."
source
So while virginity pledges may delay a child's first sexual experience it comes at the cost of increased teenage pregnancy. Nice trade off.
.
Created during the Obama administration. One source, one researcher in a field not her own.
So, we have different reports with opposite deductions. I prefer the AMA Journal
you obviously didn't read the full report.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Surely you've been told, countless times, that back in the day the Israelites needed to stick to closed couples in order to avoid rampaging sickness weakening the whole people.
Any Sin could lead to various kinds of sickness or weakness. It was nothing to do with morals, just tribal success......... which worked.
Your quotes from the NT are mostly just Pauline craziness, 'cos he'd surely lost track of what it had all been about. He didn't make a fuss about shellfish poisoning and all the rest of the laws because he was quite nuts about this thing called 'moral'.
.................... is my best guess
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You obviously could not quote from it properly nor link it.
Since you either won't or can't it appears more likely that your claims are not in there. And your most likely source for that claim was a Christian site that misrepresented (in other words they lied) what those reports say. It is not unreasonable for me to demand that you support your claims from a supposed report. For you to run away only tells us that you are probably not right.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And once again the AMA Journal does not appear to support your claims.Yes, I am aware of this study too made by "animal physiology" Dr Stranger-Hall. Strange but hey.
Created during the Obama administration. One source, one researcher in a field not her own.
So, we have different reports with opposite deductions. I prefer the AMA Journal
Try again.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Don't know where you got your Virginity Pledge Programs quote from but it kind of reeks of The Heritage Foundation. In any case, I came across some additional information based on actual studies of Virginity Pledge Programs you may be interested in.
"There have been numerous peer-reviewed studies of virginity pledges with varying results. Four of the five peer-reviewed virginity pledge studies and the non-peer-reviewed study discussed below use the same federal data, the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), in which 13,000 adolescents were interviewed in 1995, 1996, and 2000. The other peer-reviewed study used a study of virginity pledges in California.
The first peer-reviewed study of virginity pledgers found that in the year following their pledge, some virginity pledgers are more likely to delay sex than non-pledgers; when virginity pledgers do have sex, they are less likely to use contraception than non-pledgers. This study found, however, that virginity pledges are only effective in high schools in which about 30% of the students had taken the pledge, meaning that they are not effective as a universal measure.
A second peer-reviewed study looked at virginity pledgers five years after their pledge, and found that the pledgers have similar proportions of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and at least as high proportions of anal and oral sex as those who have not made a virginity pledge. They deduced that there was substitution of oral and anal sex for vaginal sex among the pledgers, although the data for anal sex without vaginal sex reported by males did not reflect this directly.
A third peer-reviewed study found that adolescents who make an informal promise to themselves not to have sex will delay sex, but adolescents who take a formal virginity pledge do not delay sex.
A fourth peer-reviewed study — by Harvard public health researcher Janet Rosenbaum published in the American Journal of Public Health in June 2006 — found that over half of adolescents who took virginity pledges said the following year that they had never taken a pledge. This study showed that those who make the pledge but have sex are likely to deny ever pledging; and many who were sexually active prior to taking the pledge deny their sexual history, which, it is speculated, may cause them to underestimate their risk of having STIs.
A fifth peer-reviewed study, also by Janet Rosenbaum published in the journal Pediatrics in 2009, found no difference in sexual behavior of pledgers and similar non-pledgers five years after pledging, but found pledgers were 10 percentage points less likely to use condoms and 6 percentage points less likely to use birth control than similar non-pledgers.
Criticism
The efficacy of virginity pledges has been extensively studied. Some studies have found that virginity pledges may be effective at delaying vaginal intercourse, but that they are ineffective in reducing the incidence of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) because pledgers may replace vaginal intercourse with other sexual activities, such as oral sex and anal sex; other research, however, has suggested no such substitution among pledgers, though pledgers may partake in vaginal or oral sex. Virginity pledges may also reduce the likelihood of contraceptive use once pledgers decide to engage in sex. Though studies have reported this and found that pledgers are more likely to remain virgins by age 25 than those who do not pledge and that those who do become sexually active report fewer sexual partners, at least one study found no difference in the sexual behavior of pledgers and non-pledgers after controlling for pre-existing differences between the groups.
Source: Wikipedia
.
The first peer-reviewed study of virginity pledgers found that in the year following their pledge, some virginity pledgers are more likely to delay sex than non-pledgers; when virginity pledgers do have sex, they are less likely to use contraception than non-pledgers. This study found, however, that virginity pledges are only effective in high schools in which about 30% of the students had taken the pledge, meaning that they are not effective as a universal measure.
A second peer-reviewed study looked at virginity pledgers five years after their pledge, and found that the pledgers have similar proportions of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and at least as high proportions of anal and oral sex as those who have not made a virginity pledge. They deduced that there was substitution of oral and anal sex for vaginal sex among the pledgers, although the data for anal sex without vaginal sex reported by males did not reflect this directly.
A third peer-reviewed study found that adolescents who make an informal promise to themselves not to have sex will delay sex, but adolescents who take a formal virginity pledge do not delay sex.
A fourth peer-reviewed study — by Harvard public health researcher Janet Rosenbaum published in the American Journal of Public Health in June 2006 — found that over half of adolescents who took virginity pledges said the following year that they had never taken a pledge. This study showed that those who make the pledge but have sex are likely to deny ever pledging; and many who were sexually active prior to taking the pledge deny their sexual history, which, it is speculated, may cause them to underestimate their risk of having STIs.
A fifth peer-reviewed study, also by Janet Rosenbaum published in the journal Pediatrics in 2009, found no difference in sexual behavior of pledgers and similar non-pledgers five years after pledging, but found pledgers were 10 percentage points less likely to use condoms and 6 percentage points less likely to use birth control than similar non-pledgers.
Criticism
The efficacy of virginity pledges has been extensively studied. Some studies have found that virginity pledges may be effective at delaying vaginal intercourse, but that they are ineffective in reducing the incidence of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) because pledgers may replace vaginal intercourse with other sexual activities, such as oral sex and anal sex; other research, however, has suggested no such substitution among pledgers, though pledgers may partake in vaginal or oral sex. Virginity pledges may also reduce the likelihood of contraceptive use once pledgers decide to engage in sex. Though studies have reported this and found that pledgers are more likely to remain virgins by age 25 than those who do not pledge and that those who do become sexually active report fewer sexual partners, at least one study found no difference in the sexual behavior of pledgers and non-pledgers after controlling for pre-existing differences between the groups.
Source: Wikipedia
.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
So did you lie, or can you simply not support your claim? You obviously do not know how to debate properly.
Listen, we can go back and forth on this all day long:
Study: Abstinence program most effective at delaying sex among youths - CNN.com
This new study is game-changing," the nonpartisan National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy said in a statement. "For the first time, there is strong evidence that an abstinence-only intervention can help very young teens delay sex and reduce their recent sexual activity as well."
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sorry, too late. Your inability to support your claims shows that it was one or the other.You would like that... but no
Perhaps reading comprehension is your downfall?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Keep dreaming my dear friend.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I am not dreaming. You moved the goal posts. That was an admission of defeat on your part. You could not debate the original topic.
Here is a suggestion, try to debate honestly. Stick to the topic of the debate. Changing the debate is a form of admitting that you are wrong whether you like it or not.
No one here has been advocating for minors to have sex. You changed the topic to that. That was an admission of defeat.
Or you could do the honorable thing. You could own up to your error and get back to the OP. Do you think that you can be honest in this debate or not?
Skwim
Veteran Member
MY MISTAKE AND I APOLOGIZE. my post wasn't in the least relevant.Yes, I am aware of this study too made by "animal physiology" Dr Stranger-Hall. Strange but hey.
Created during the Obama administration. One source, one researcher in a field not her own.
So, we have different reports with opposite deductions. I prefer the AMA Journal
I'VE SINCE DELETED THAT POST and posted a much more relevant one. Please revisit.
.
Skwim
Veteran Member
By "closed couples" I assume you mean married couples, because for sure unmarried couples were be-smitten with rampaging sickness.
So what happened when two people got married, their "sin sicknesses or weaknesses" disappeared?
.