By Laurie Higgins, Director of IFI's DSA | Illinois Family Institute
There is much to ruminate about following the publication of a study
that compared the sexual behavior of teens who took virginity pledges
with that of teens who did not. The study by Janet Rosenbaum appeared in the Jan. 2009 issue of Pediatrics
and received widespread coverage by the mainstream media. The study
showed that teens who make "virginity pledges" are no more likely to
remain virgins until marriage than teens with similar religious views
who do not make pledges. Moreover, those who make pledges are less
likely to use condoms when they finally choose to have premarital sex.
The gleeful, smug announcement of these findings by all too many
comprehensive sex ed proponents is troubling. Their responses suggest
that they are more concerned about winning the battle to get ever more
provocative and graphic sexual information into the heads and hearts of
teens than they are with the disturbing information that fully 50% of
our youth are sexually active by the time they are 21 years old.
Comprehensive sex ed proponents say that since abstinence pledges don't
work and abstinence pledges are a central part of many abstinence sex
ed programs, then abstinence programs don't work. But is that too broad
a claim? Might it just be that one element of the abstinence
program--the virginity pledges--doesn't work? Is the apparent failure
of that one element sufficient to abandon all abstinence programs?
Executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association, Valerie Huberexplains
that "The author inaccurately equates the holistic breadth of an
abstinence education program to the one-time event of a virginity
pledge. A pledge and an abstinence program are not synonymous."
What I have not yet been able to ascertain is whether the 932 students
Janet E. Rosenbaum studied had been in comprehensive or
abstinence-based sex ed classes. If they were all in comprehensive sex
ed classes, then the failure of the virginity pledges could hardly be
attributed to abstinence education.
A Washington Postarticle
quoted a Johns Hopkins obstetrician and gynecologist who said "It is
time to stop spending money on these useless (abstinence) programs and
funnel it into safer-sex counseling." But before we abandon abstinence
education, ought we not ascertain whether it was the abstinence
education that failed or the virginity pledges that failed?
What somehow got lost in the media-hype surrounding the release of this study's findings
is that it also showed that "teens who take virginity pledges do delay
sexual activity until an average age of 21 (compared to about age 17
for the average American teen)." If abstinence education as a whole is
pilloried because of the apparent failure of virginity pledges,
shouldn't abstinence education as whole be cheered--and supported--for
its apparent success in delaying first sexual experience by four years?
Another interesting fact from the Rosenbaum study,
rarely reported by the mainstream media, is that "non-pledgers,"
meaning those who did not take virginity pledges were "2.31%" more
likely to have "been paid for sex" than those who took virginity
pledges. Make of that what you will.
abstinence programs use the Rosenbaum study, which focused solely on
the efficacy of virginity pledges in preventing premarital sex and
condom use, as justification for defunding abstinence education. But
for many abstinence education advocates, virginity pledges are not
their central concern.
Liberal "educators," with their voracious appetites for the hearts and
minds of other people's children, continue to gobble up increasing
areas of life. Their apparently insatiable hunger to remake the world
in their own image blinds them to the arrogance of their quest. And
their manipulation of rhetoric blinds taxpayers to the
inappropriateness of both their means and ends.
"Comprehensive sex education" is education-speak for sex education
curricula that, among other things, teach students subversive,
controversial, and destructive views of premarital sex conduct,
abortion, and homosexuality. Here are some of the problematic features
of typical comprehensive sex ed curricula:
- They include
"values-based education that offer students the opportunity to explore
and define their individual values as well as the values of their
families and communities," all of which suggest there are no moral
- They provide information on abortion, masturbation, and sexual orientation.
- They offer students "the opportunity to explore their own and their family's religious values."
There are no valid pedagogical reasons for health educators to discuss
masturbation or abortion or family religious values or homosexuality.
Nor do they need to demonstrate how to use a condom. If virginity
pledges are what's sticking in the craw of comprehensive sex ed
advocates, it's quite simple to eliminate them from abstinence
curricula. Churches and families are better places for encouraging
virginity pledges anyway.
Critics of abstinence programs also point to a study released
in April 2007 that compared the behavior of students in abstinence
programs with that of students who were in comprehensive sex ed
programs as evidence of the failure of abstinence programs. That study
revealed the following:
- Kids in both groups
(abstinence and control groups) were knowledgeable about the risks of
having sex without using a condom or other form of protection.
- Condom use was not high in either group.
- By the end of the study, when the average child was just shy of 17, half of both groups had remained abstinent.
- The sexually active teenagers had sex the first time at about age 15.
- More than a third of both groups had two or more partners.
This study also, however, found this:
- A greater number of students in abstinence programs correctly identified STDs than did students in control groups.
greater number of students in abstinence programs reported correctly
that birth control pills do not prevent STDs than did students in
After reading this report, Martha Kempner of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States declared that
"Abstinence-only was an experiment and it failed." Curiously, Ms.
Kempner looked at abstinence programs, which have largely the same
results as comprehensive sex ed programs--except that they better
prepare students with a knowledge of STD-prevention--and she declares
that only abstinence programs are failures.
I would argue that if abstinence programs are deemed a failure and
worthy of defunding, then comprehensive sex ed programs that have
virtually the same results should also be deemed a failure and defunded.