Talk:Abstinence pledge

Pregnancy Risk

While they can CERTAINLY lead to the spread of STIs, oral and anal intercourse carry NO RISK of pregnancy--only vaginal intercourse can result in conception. This is a gross inaccuracy. Marieprecious 12:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This statement is utter nonsense. Heterosexual anal sex of course carries that risk. Sperm can reach the vagina nevertheless since it doesn't always stays in situ.--Nemissimo 17:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

the risk however is so extremely low, has anybody even measured it above a level of the margin of error? Mathmo ^Talk 09:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Alternative intercourse

I've improved the bit on anal sex and oral sex somewhat. Initially it seemed to suggest anal sex and oral sex were completely safe from pregnancy (anal sex is definitely not and even unprotected oral sex must carry a small risk) and that protection is foolproof when it comes to STIs (it's not due to failures). I've also added a bit on the greater risk of STIs from anal sex since I think this is important in the 'debate'. I don't think this is OR or has NPOV problems as we're not trying to lead the reader in any direction just point out that anal sex has greater risks which is well established. We might want to mention that oral sex has lower risks of STIs then vaginal sex too perhaps? Nil Einne 15:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Another thing which I think we should discuss but we need a source is whether protection is less likely to be used when anal sex or oral sex is practiced instead of vaginal sex. I suspect the answer is yes. In this case, it similarly suggests there may be a greater risk, at least with anal sex (I'm not particularly sure what the transmission rates of unprotected oral sex vs protected vaginal sex) and it's something I think we should mention. Even better if we there is research which directly links it to virginity pledges (teens who make virginity pledges are more likely to have anal or oral sex and when they do are even less likely to use protection)Nil Einne 15:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Anal sex is only a pregnancy risk if sperm makes its way (traveling outside, not inside) from the anus to the vagina, since of course there is no mechanism in the anus that would allow a woman to get pregnant. But there is a risk, as you say. I don't see any pregnancy risk when it comes to oral sex, unless semen also somehow makes its way to the vagina via a body part or in this bizarre case that is reported in the Notes section of the Oral sex article. 50.19.25.8 (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuals

This article more or less completely ignores homosexuals. Is there any effort at all to promote pledges to homosexuals? Any info on how they effect behaviour im homosexuals? I appreciate most of these groups engaged in promoting virginity pledges hate homosexuals with a passion (although they usually say it's not the sin but the sinner or whatever bullshit) so in all likelihood homosexuals are completely ignored (and indeed I suspect many of them would prefer homosexuals to be having sex with a an opposite sex partner then even thinking that they might be homosexual). Not to mention that most of them don't think it's possible for homosexuals to be in a commited relationship like marriage so I guess virginity pledges are irrelevant when it comes to homosexuals in the eyes of most promoting the concept. Then again perhaps some groups do promote virginity pledges for homosexuals but in this case the idea is that they don't have sex ever Nil Einne 15:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Rector's Article

I have removed the line about the "non peer reviewed" study and the link to the article containing it. That article is obviously garbage, contains nothing but inaccuracies, and the citations in the man's article are to other articles that he has written. It is 100 per cent POV and should not be even noted. --King Bee 14:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

external links

How do the organization links support the virginity pledge as an article? This is not a wikipage about [proper noun] True Love Waits or Silver Ring Thing. It appears as "Links mainly intended to promote a website"

Furthermore, what criteria do the reports meet to be in external links? if they are worth citing, then cite it. According to wikipedia: "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site, if any." Neither are these links interviews or reviews that can't be added into the article. Not sure what 'unique' resource it provides either.

Remember the wikipedia rule: "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." Lihaas (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Heritage Foundation study paragraph

On examination of the removal and revert of the following paragraph, I have removed it again.

Content removed: "A 2004 report by Robert E. Rector, Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., and Jennifer A. Marshall contradicts all the above statistics even though analysing much of the same data. The reason for the difference can be seen in citation (16) of that report which states [16]"In some cases, individuals failed to answer the pledge question on one or more waves of the survey; an individual who responded negatively to this question on at least one wave and gave no response on the other waves was categorized as a non-pledger." - thus many teens who had broken the pledge but denied making it were counted as NON pledgers, rather than lapsed pledgers."

I was able to find this study. [1] It was published by the Heritage Foundation and, so far as I can tell, was not peer-reviewed. I removed the paragraph for two reasons: 1) As a non-peer-reviewed study by an organization with an obvious bias, it lacks equivalent reliability to the other studies cited in the article. 2) The paragraph as written interprets the study's methodology, rather than summarizing its findings (which were very pro-virginity pledge, no surprise there) and as such appears to be original research. If someone can find a reliable source that includes the quoted critique of the Heritage Foundation study, then I suggest that the study's conclusions be summarized and the critique be included and cited. Otherwise, I suggest this stay out of the article. --Sfmammamia (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

One in six

Wow. I'm in the UK and watching a programme about purity balls etc, and it says that one in six US girls take a purity vow. Is this true? We have nothing like a large movement doing this in the UK, as yet.

As for this comment being rv'ed as 'not a forum'- I'm sorry if you saw my comment this way as that's not how it was meant. It is not using this as a forum, as it is an interesting fact that may be added to the article, thus discussing the article's improvement. This is how changes to articles are made, by mentioning possible facts and discussing their accuracy or otherwise so as to decide on their use for the article or possible additions to it to explain possible things which can be cleared up in the article or added. (adding other bit from user talk as I feel it explains what I mean better) Please WP:AGF, this contained several facts we could seek sources for or explain in the article- how many women are doing it, and how it has less participation in other countries, though that's probably growing. For all this we could probably find WP:RS, indeed it was mentioned in a documentary on mainstream television in the UK. Sticky Parkin 23:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

First off, the line between valid discussion of an article and using the talkpage as 'a forum' is somewhat subjective really. Anyway, my point. The page would be improved if we added some facts as I discuss below. Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

A little more balance

The article as it reads seems a little biased with it's use of facts. For instance it overplays the lessening of Sexually transmitted disease when a few moments on Google one finds, [2]. Also, the article is too US centred, some refs to Europe and other parts of the world, such as, [3] should be added. Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead

There's nothing in the lead about the scientific studies of this subject. Leads are supposed to summarize articles and not including this in the lead seems to promote pledges. Thus, the POV tag. B^e——C_ritical 08:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is a POV expressed by the following facts:

Virginity pledges (or abstinence pledges) are commitments made by teenagers and young adults to refrain from sexual intercourse until marriage. They are most common in the United States, especially among Catholic and Evangelical Christian denominations.

The first sentence is a definition. The second sentence (although requiring a citation) is (probably) a fact that expresses no viewpoint. I don't see how either expresses a point of view that they are good or bad. By contrast, "Studies have generally found virginity pledges to be ineffective" is an uncited synthesis of results from the scientific literature that is expressing a point of view (that is a point of view on the answer to the empirical question "do they work?"). Further, the claim is potentially inaccurate and is strongly dependent on your definition of "efficacy". For example, one study showed delay on onset of intercourse at the cost of most risky behavior at first intercourse. Alternatively, studies which show that alternative forms of sexual interaction being substituted could be construed as being an effective harms reduction (or not) strategy. My view is that the available data is complicated enough that a more thorough discussion is left to the section on efficacy rather than jumping to uncited conclusions. While I agree that your synthesis is likely correct and don't believe the data supports use of pledges as a public health measure, I don't think it's appropriate to simplify the complex literature on the topic as you have in your added paragraph in the setting of Wikipedia where we must cite everything. SocratesJedi | Talk 04:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

We can't just leave one of the most important aspects which takes up so much of the article out of the lead. Characterizing as "ineffective" seems justified to me, as the pledge is to avoid sex and the kids don't. However, we could leave out the characterization and simply put in the gist of the stats. Any suggestions on how to convey -summarize- the main thrust of the scientific studies? B^e——C_ritical 05:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that their efficacy is a key issue. I've done my best to present a concise summary. I'm not sure that ineffective is the correct word. Certainly, the most recent study in Pediatrics suggests that is the case. However, other studies suggest that they are at least effective in delaying vaginal intercourse even though they're ineffective at reducing STI rates and lead to other effects. In the absence of a clear consensus (which would be embodied by a well-cited review article on the subject), I feel a little uncomfortable tagging them explicitly as 'ineffective', even though that is my opinion. It is best to report the data and allow readers to draw the conclusion. We should not show a bias (POV) towards the 2009 Peds study over the others by blanket saying they are ineffective. If you can find a well-cited review saying they're ineffective though, I would be comfortable with that. SocratesJedi | Talk 08:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It's beautifully done (: B^e——C_ritical 20:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! SocratesJedi | Talk 21:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed the lead to this,[4] which is only a slight but needed change. SocratesJedi's version had the lead saying that virginity pledges are effective in delaying vaginal intercourse but not the rate of sexually transmitted infections, without clearly and immediately explaining why that is. If these young people are not having vaginal intercourse, then how are they getting these sexually transmitted infections? It's because they are using other sexual activities in place of vaginal intercourse, namely oral sex and anal sex. While SocratesJedi's version did mention the substitution acts replacing vaginal intercourse, it was away from the vaginal intercourse line. I found that odd because it should be there to immediately explain to the readers how virginity pledgers are still getting STIs. So, basically, I switched the lines, putting the oral and anal information with the vaginal and STI information, and the reduction of contraception use after that. 50.19.25.8 (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Becritical didn't have to cite the lead, per WP:LEAD, because this information is already cited lower in the article. So, no, not everything needs to be cited on Wikipedia. There are instances where cites are not necessary. But, in this case, since the information is somewhat controversial and has been challenged by SocratesJedi as needing to be cited, the lead is therefore better with citations. That (controversial/contested information) is also covered in WP:LEAD. 50.19.25.8 (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

This revert[5] by SocratesJedi is absolutely ridiculous, which is why I reverted and will continue to revert. Or take this to WP:RfC. The researchers in the studies quite clearly suggest that pledgers are using oral and anal sex in place of vaginal sex and that this is the reason for the STI infections. I used "may" for that reason. And just how do you, SocratesJedi, think they are getting STI infections anyway if not having vaginal intercourse?! STIs are sexually transmitted; they are not coming from anything else, unless you think they are partially coming from the sharing of needles. 50.19.25.8 (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

And as for the ncbi.nlm.nih.gov source,[6] it is not a good thing that "Other studies, however, have found no difference in the sexual behavior of pledges and non-pledgers after controlling for pre-existing differences between the groups." It's not a good thing because there shouldn't be any sexual activities on the part of the pledgers until after marriage. As the results part of that source says: "Five years after the pledge, 82% of pledgers denied having ever pledged. Pledgers and matched nonpledgers did not differ in premarital sex, sexually transmitted diseases, and anal and oral sex variables. Pledgers had 0.1 fewer past-year partners but did not differ in lifetime sexual partners and age of first sex. Fewer pledgers than matched nonpledgers used birth control and condoms in the past year and birth control at last sex." So I don't know why you feel that creates some kind of balance in the lead. It certainly shouldn't include "however" as though it's reporting something positive. And it confirms the oral/anal factor, without giving any doubt that pledgers took part in those activities. 50.19.25.8 (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Edited lead accordingly.[7] 50.19.25.8 (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed the lead again.[8][9] The ncbi.nlm.nih.gov source, while reporting there being no difference in anal and oral sex variables between the two groups, says "Most virginity pledgers reported having had premarital vaginal and oral sex but did not seem to substitute oral and anal sex for vaginal sex, contrary to earlier studies." So while previous studies reported that there is substitution, this study reports that there doesn't seem to always be. Both are now represented in text in the lead. And either way, both sources are saying that virginity pledgers took part in oral sex and anal sex, even if not as a substitution for vaginal sex. These other sexual activities are no doubt where STIs are coming from, if not from vaginal sex. STIs don't just come out of nowhere, as made clear in the studies reporting substitution. 50.19.25.8 (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

One more edit I made to the lead was to change "rate" to "incidence"[10] because that is more accurate. 50.19.25.8 (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

And since there was no positive information in the lead, other than virginity pledges' effectiveness of delaying vaginal sex, I added positive research (only a little bit of it is in this article anyway) to the lead to balance things out.[11] I left the details about that in the section covering it. 50.19.25.8 (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

First, calm down. Thank you for the information regarding WP:Lead. My reversion was only to be cautious and ensure that all claims had citation in the literature. I had made a few modifications - which I hope you will interpret to not alter the primary content of the lead - to improve the flow and solve a few grammatical issues. The only content change of substance is to put the the info about Peds 2009, which showed no difference, at the end saying 'Despite all these studies... blah blah peds showed no difference.' I thought this was more reflective of the overall 'there is no difference' message rather than as a clause attached to the contraceptive issue. Is this a satisfactory synthesis?

If you wish, I would welcome a RfC on this issue. I understand that sex education is a controvertial issue and the article can only be improved by having more eyes looking at it.

Finally, do you happen to have the source for "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"? I looked at both the refs attached, but could not find support for the claim. Otherwise, can you add the ref?

Thanks and I look forward to editing with you. SocratesJedi | Talk 20:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've also asked User:Bbb23 to comment on this article (see User talk:Bbb23#Virginity pledge). This editor made modifications at Silver Ring Thing. I updated that page with similar text to our initial lead when I thought I had reached consensus (since I as only discussing it with User:Becritical at tee time). I thought that editor may have some insight. SocratesJedi | Talk 20:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not upset or anything like that, so no need to calm down unless you were referring to all my changes and comments. Your edits[12] to improve grammar were not an improvement, in my opinion. The second one broke up the vaginal/oral/anal sex sentence into two, when that is not needed and weakens that line, and it introduced WP:Weasel words or WP:Editorializing, such as "It has been proposed" and "Despite all these studies." The word "despite" is pretty POV anyway. That edit also removed the info about pledgers maybe not substituting oral and anal for vaginal, which is a nice balance if we are going to mention substitution. These changes[13][14] to your edit are better, in my opinion, because the information flows without all that and still keeps the Peds 2009 information last.

A RfC doesn't seem to be needed anymore, since you now agree that the researchers suggested that in the case of vaginal sex not being had, the STIs were a result of other sexual activities such as oral and anal sex.

I assume that the "Pledgers are more likely to remain virgins by age 25" information is covered by the more extensive source (that second one). When it comes to such sources, we are only reading abstracts unless we have access to the whole thing. So I used WP:Assume Good Faith with that information, which is already in the section tackling studies on virginity pledges. 50.19.25.8 (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm here because SocratesJedi asked me to comment. I edited the material added by Socrates to the Silver Ring Thing ([15]). You'll note that the virgin sentence in the Virginity pledge article wasn't in Socrates's edit, probably because it's not relevant to the other article. In any event, it appears you've reached some consensus since Socrates asked me to comment, so I don't think my thoughts are needed. If you wish, you could adopt my wording here - up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to comment. I'm pretty content with the current wording of the lead, per my commentary above. But what do you make of the "Pledgers are more likely to remain virgins by age 25" line? I mean, it's okay to assume that this is covered by the second source -- this one[16] -- right? It was already in the article, which means that the person who added that text along with the source had access to the whole source. Unless they made it up. But I doubt that it's made-up. 50.19.25.8 (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You have to accept a statement sourced like that, unless you want to go to the trouble of actually verifying the source (however you choose to do that) of if you can find another reliable source that contradicts it. It's quite well cited, including page numbers, which adds credibility to the editor who added it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. Yeah, I said above that we have to assume good faith there. And the exact detail about it is in the section regarding all the virginity studies. 50.19.25.8 (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Split of alcohol pledges vs. sexual behavior pledges

I propose splitting this article into Alcohol abstinence pledge and Sexual abstinence pledge. I'm surprised to see them joined in this article, as they are promoted by different organizations, are evaluated by different outcomes, and largely discussed by different sources. Any objections? Daask (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)