VIRGINITY pledges surfaced in the early 1990's as a way to promote abstinence among young adults. The theory was that teenagers would be more likely to remain chaste if they had stronger support from the community to do so. The practice, which is still used today, usually consists of the teenagers voluntarily signing a pledge or publicly announcing their intention to abstain from sex. Often, these pledgers receive a pin or ring to symbolize their promise. According to the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health released last year, however, teenagers who take virginity pledges are almost as likely to be infected with a sexually transmitted disease as those who never made the pledge.
"Although young people who sign a virginity pledge delay the initiation of sexual activity, marry at younger ages and have fewer sexual partners, they are also less likely to use condoms and more likely to experiment with oral and anal sex," said the researchers from Yale and Columbia, as reported by The Washington Post. The problem with this, however, lies in the fact that if teenagers are not actively participating in intercourse, they are not likely to have condoms lying around. Also, while alternative forms of sex (such as oral or anal) can't get you pregnant, they can still be a source for diseases.
According to The Washington Post, "of the 1,622 who reported a pledge to remain abstinent during the [NLSAH] study, 6.4 percent had one of the STD's. Of the 9,072 teens that did not ever make a virginity pledge, 6.9 percent had one of the STD's." The study also found that pledgers were much less likely to use contraception the first time they had sex and also were less likely than other teens to have undergone STD testing or to know their STD status. "Kids who are engaging in oral sex or anal sex will tell you they are practicing abstinence because they haven't had 'real sex' yet," said Deborah Roffman, an educator and author of Sex and Sensibility: the Thinking Parent's Guide to Talking Sense about Sex in a Washington Post article last year. The data also underscores the fact that many young people -- particularly those from middle and upper-income white families -- simply do not consider oral sex to be as significant as their parents' generation did. If abstinence is now limited simply to intercourse, safe condom usage must be taught. Youths who take virginity pledges are often under educated about sexual health, and this is what leads to such frightening percentages. "They [virginity pledgers] are causing harm by undermining condom use, contraception and medical treatment," said William Smith, policy director at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, in a Washington Post interview.
But instead of educating teenagers on safe sex and then letting them make an informed decision, last year President Bush requested $206 million in federal funding for abstinence-only programs. "The only 100 percent way to avoid a car collision is not to drive, but the federal government sure does a lot of advocacy for safety belts," said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, a group that promotes education about birth control and condom use, in the Aegis (AIDS Education Global Information System) Web site.
Expecting complete abstinence in any teenage setting is not only outrageous, it's irrational. Forgetting sexual intercourse, slightly more than half of American teenagers ages 15 to 19 have engaged in oral sex, and the proportion increases to about 70 percent of all 18 and 19-year-olds.
If the very people who argue against condom usage truly cared about health and safety, wouldn't it be more logical to educate young adults on both sides of the spectrum without pressuring them into one or the other? The existing negative view on condoms is what leads teenagers to engage in oral sex without protection, simply because they have no risk of becoming pregnant.
Methods of contraception and safe sex education are necessary in a world where abstinence no longer equals celibacy and where much more is at risk than just pregnancy. As quoted in the Chicago Tribune, health experts also say there is no "reliable evidence" that these [abstinence] programs reduce teen pregnancy.
The Centers for Disease Control, however, which is the federal government's single source of funds for HIV prevention work, recently modified its content under the Bush administration. Not only do organizations that receive money from the CDC have to promote abstinence, they can't show any obscene pictures (such as the proper way to put on a condom).
Abstinence, although a lovely ideal, is simply not a real choice for many teens, most of whom will participate in some sort of sexual activity before marriage. Promoting it, then, will not have any effect on unwanted pregnancies or STD contraction. Promoting abstinence is, in simple words, just not safe.
Andrea Arango is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint writer.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
